-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
Remove the lightbeam backend #3390
Conversation
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, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Subscribe to Label Actioncc @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:
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the |
There was a problem hiding this 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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/ ?
docs/contributing-architecture.md
Outdated
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/the Cranelift/Cranelift/
The corresponding value (WASMTIME_STRATEGY_LIGHTBEAM) was removed with bytecodealliance/wasmtime#3390 (Wasmtime 0.31.0).
The corresponding value (WASMTIME_STRATEGY_LIGHTBEAM) was removed with bytecodealliance/wasmtime#3390 (Wasmtime 0.31.0).
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
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.