Uses instant::Instant in place of std::time::Instant.
#231
Conversation
| @@ -51,7 +52,7 @@ cfg_if! { | |||
| // See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/libstd/sys/wasm/time.rs | |||
| type InstantType = DummyInstant; | |||
| } else { | |||
| // Otherwise use `std::time::Instant` | |||
| // Otherwise use `instant::Instant` | |||
| type InstantType = Instant; | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this hack still necessary now that we have support for Instant on WASM? I guess the default instant type is still used if neither the stdweb or wasm-bindgen features are enabled...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure, but shall check (give me an hour)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It works without the hack ✌️
GIF of a single threaded WASM countdown (counts down quickly, but only refreshes at 10 FPS):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After thinking about it for a bit, I think it's better to keep the old DummyInstant hack for wasm. The code using it relies on the fact that calling Instant::now is reasonably fast, which may not be the case on wasm.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gotcha, shall take take commit out
|
Build failure on error: linking with `cc` failed: exit code: 1
# ..
= note: /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -llog
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit statusNot sure if it's related to this change -- |
|
I think it's unrelated, maybe there is some issue with Android CI? cc @XAMPPRocky |
azriel91
force-pushed
the
feature/use-wasm-compatible-instant
branch
from
26149d0
to
37ceeb3
Compare
|
It looks like a regression in the nightly compiler to me. If it happens consistently I would report it to the main rust repo. |
Heya, I was trying out
governor(rate limiter) on WASM, which requiredparking_lotto use a wasm compatibleInstanttype, and I came up with this patch.The underlying
instant::Instanttype isstd::time::Instantwhen compiled without enabling the"stdweb"or"wasm-bindgen"features.If you'd like to take it I'll be happy; I'm still trying out different rate-limiting implementations, so am not sure if I'll be using this (but if it's merged, then it's more likely that I will).