Expose wasmer::{CraneliftOptLevel, LLVMOptLevel} #1894
Conversation
webmaster128
requested review from
Hywan,
MarkMcCaskey,
nlewycky and
syrusakbary
as code owners
| @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ use wasmer_compiler::{ | |||
| /// Possible optimization levels for the Cranelift codegen backend. | |||
| #[non_exhaustive] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, Debug)] | |||
| pub enum OptLevel { | |||
| pub enum CraneliftOptLevel { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to rename this type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not strictly necessary, but with this rename we avoid naming collisions in the wasmer:: high level API namespace. In the not too far future there is probably wasmer::OptimizationLevel for the LLVM version, making it hard to reason about to which backends the types belong.
The other option would be use have pub use wasmer_compiler_cranelift::{Cranelift, OptLevel as CraneliftOptLevel};, which gives us wasmer_compiler_cranelift::OptLevel and wasmer::CraneliftOptLevel. But in my opinion this creates more confusion than it helps.
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure about this change.
You think is likely companies will use two compilers within the same codebase? This PR moves into prefixing all the public-facing objects of compilers with CompilernameXXX
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You think is likely companies will use two compilers within the same codebase?
Well, we do. I don't know much about other use cases. But even if they don't: the caller code use wasmer::OptLevel; should not refer to compiler X in one project and compiler Y in a different project, right?
This PR moves into prefixing all the public-facing objects of compilers with
CompilernameXXX
Right. It is based on the idea that you promoted recently: make all high level API available in the wasmer:: namespace. This is a noble goal, but hard to get right. In #1730 we were fighting imports, #1872 documents a conflict now we have at least very similar names for multiple compilers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's a good idea to rename OptLevel to CraneliftOptLevel here, since we already have the Cranelift compiler. It makes sense and it avoids name clashing. Thoughts @syrusakbary @MarkMcCaskey @nlewycky and @jubianchi?
@webmaster128 Could you extend this renaming to other compilers in this PR, so that it's consistent across the entire codebase please?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@webmaster128 Could you extend this renaming to other compilers in this PR, so that it's consistent across the entire codebase please?
So far this is the only new compiler-specific export in wasmer:::
#[cfg(feature = "singlepass")]
pub use wasmer_compiler_singlepass::Singlepass;
#[cfg(feature = "cranelift")]
pub use wasmer_compiler_cranelift::{Cranelift, CraneliftOptLevel};
#[cfg(feature = "llvm")]
pub use wasmer_compiler_llvm::LLVM;However, I now also added LLVMOptLevel to show the direction in which this is heading.
Hywan
added
🎉 enhancement
|
Thanks for the PR! |
webmaster128
force-pushed
the
cranelift-opt
branch
from
98222b9 to
767f5a9
Compare
webmaster128
changed the title
|
bors r+ |
1894: Expose wasmer::{CraneliftOptLevel, LLVMOptLevel} r=Hywan a=webmaster128
# Description
This is required to do something like
```rust
use wasmer::{Cranelift, CraneliftOptLevel};
let mut compiler = Cranelift::default();
compiler.opt_level(CraneliftOptLevel::None);
let engine = JIT::new(compiler).engine();
// ...
```
# Review
- [ ] Add a short description of the the change to the CHANGELOG.md file
Co-authored-by: Simon Warta <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ivan Enderlin <[email protected]>
|
Build failed: |
webmaster128
force-pushed
the
cranelift-opt
branch
from
c6a693c to
5196b8f
Compare
|
Fixed the compile issue |
|
bors try |
|
I think this is ready to be merged. Or should I update it again to master? |
|
Please can you just update the |
This is required to do something like
```rust
use wasmer::{Cranelift, CraneliftOptLevel};
let mut compiler = Cranelift::default();
compiler.opt_level(CraneliftOptLevel::None);
let engine = JIT::new(compiler).engine();
// ...
```
webmaster128
force-pushed
the
cranelift-opt
branch
from
5196b8f to
50f0339
Compare
Sure, done |
|
Thanks! bors r+ |
Description
This is required to do something like
Review