Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove the lightbeam backend #3390

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 27, 2021

Conversation

alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

This commit removes the Lightbeam backend from Wasmtime as per RFC 14.
This backend hasn't received maintenance in quite some time, and as RFC
14
indicates this doesn't meet the threshold for keeping the code
in-tree, so this commit removes it.

A fast "baseline" compiler may still be added in the future. The
addition of such a backend should be in line with RFC 14, though, with
the principles we now have for stable releases of Wasmtime. I'll close
out Lightbeam-related issues once this is merged.

This commit removes the Lightbeam backend from Wasmtime as per [RFC 14].
This backend hasn't received maintenance in quite some time, and as [RFC
14] indicates this doesn't meet the threshold for keeping the code
in-tree, so this commit removes it.

A fast "baseline" compiler may still be added in the future. The
addition of such a backend should be in line with [RFC 14], though, with
the principles we now have for stable releases of Wasmtime. I'll close
out Lightbeam-related issues once this is merged.

[RFC 14]: bytecodealliance/rfcs#14
@@ -155,10 +146,6 @@ struct CommonOptions {
#[structopt(long, parse(from_os_str), value_name = "CONFIG_PATH")]
config: Option<PathBuf>,

/// Use Cranelift for all compilation
#[structopt(long, conflicts_with = "lightbeam")]
cranelift: bool,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe keep this for in the future if a new backend is added?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can be added in the future and otherwise I think it would be confusing to have a flag that basically does nothing.

@github-actions github-actions bot added cranelift Issues related to the Cranelift code generator cranelift:area:x64 Issues related to x64 codegen fuzzing Issues related to our fuzzing infrastructure lightbeam Issues related to the Lightbeam compiler wasmtime:c-api Issues pertaining to the C API. wasmtime:docs Issues related to Wasmtime's documentation labels Sep 27, 2021
@github-actions
Copy link

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @fitzgen, @peterhuene

This issue or pull request has been labeled: "cranelift", "cranelift:area:x64", "fuzzing", "lightbeam", "wasmtime:c-api", "wasmtime:docs"

Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:

  • fitzgen: fuzzing
  • peterhuene: wasmtime:c-api

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the .github/subscribe-to-label.json configuration file.

Learn more.

Copy link
Member

@cfallin cfallin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

/// Lightbeam, and currently it will always pick Cranelift. This default may
/// change over time though.
/// Automatically picks the compilation backend, currently always defaulting
/// to Cranelift.
WASMTIME_STRATEGY_AUTO,

/// Indicates that Cranelift will unconditionally use Cranelift to compile
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pre-existing, but s/Cranelift will unconditionally use Cranelift/Wasmtime will unconditionally use Cranelift/ ?

are not implemented today just yet. Additionally the Lightbeam compiler has
not received maintenance in a long time, so effectively everyone uses
Cranelift.
and currently the Cranelift can be used for compiling. It is a goal of
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/the Cranelift/Cranelift/

kpreisser added a commit to kpreisser/wasmtime-dotnet that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2022
The corresponding value (WASMTIME_STRATEGY_LIGHTBEAM) was removed with bytecodealliance/wasmtime#3390 (Wasmtime 0.31.0).
peterhuene pushed a commit to bytecodealliance/wasmtime-dotnet that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2022
The corresponding value (WASMTIME_STRATEGY_LIGHTBEAM) was removed with bytecodealliance/wasmtime#3390 (Wasmtime 0.31.0).
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit to near/nearcore that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2024
Lightbeam backend has been removed from wasmtime all the way back in
2021. The supporting code we have here won't build, and we don't test it
either.

bytecodealliance/wasmtime#3390
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cranelift:area:x64 Issues related to x64 codegen cranelift Issues related to the Cranelift code generator fuzzing Issues related to our fuzzing infrastructure lightbeam Issues related to the Lightbeam compiler wasmtime:c-api Issues pertaining to the C API. wasmtime:docs Issues related to Wasmtime's documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants