RFC: shared host functions. #9
Conversation
peterhuene
force-pushed
the
engine-host-functions
branch
from
d69dd5c
to
b76813a
Compare
peterhuene
force-pushed
the
engine-host-functions
branch
from
b76813a
to
6baa11a
Compare
This RFC proposes to extend the Wasmtime API to allow users to define host functions in a `Config` that can be shared between multiple engines and therefore stores. Today, `Func` is used to define host functions, but it is tied to a `Store`. If users desire short-lived stores to ensure short-lived instances, host functions need to be redefined upon every module instantiation. By defining host functions with a `Config`, instances can be created without having to redefine the host functions; this will make for faster module instantiations in scenarios where a module is repeatedly instantiated.
peterhuene
force-pushed
the
engine-host-functions
branch
from
6baa11a
to
5ec4357
Compare
peterhuene
changed the title
Engine-level.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me!
On the WasiCtx in particular, the way I now see this is that all of the things we currently store in WasiCtx will eventually be moved out to be stored in other places. With the switch to handles and resources, we'll no longer need things like the entries table inside WasiCtx; we'll just have handles and resources.
Motion to finalize with a disposition to mergeI'm proposing that we merge this RFC. Feedback has been addressed from the draft RFC and an implementation in Wasmtime is ready for review. Stakeholders sign-offTagging all employees of BA-affiliated companies who have committed to the Wasmtime repo in the last three months plus anyone who has given feedback on this PR as a stakeholder. FastlyIBMIntelMozilla |
|
Preface: I'm new to the wasmtime codebase (but would love to get up to speed and start contributing in the future), and I might be completely offbase with this. Would it be possible to somehow turn this into the "import object bound" that makes |
|
The problem this RFC tries to address isn't really related to This RFC calls for defining host functions in a way that is not tied to a As Does that explanation make sense? |
|
That makes a lot of sense, thank you! I see how this solves much of the same use case. |
Entering Final Call Period
The FCP will end on Tue Mar 9. |
|
The FCP has elapsed without any objections being raised; as a result I'm going to merge this. Thanks everyone! |
Rendered RFC
This RFC proposes to extend the Wasmtime API to allow users to define host
functions in a
Configthat can be shared between multiple engines andtherefore stores.
Today,
Funcis used to define host functions, but it is tied to aStore.If users desire short-lived stores to ensure short-lived instances, host
functions need to be redefined upon every module instantiation.
By defining host functions with a
Config, instances can be createdwithout having to redefine the host functions; this will make for faster module
instantiations in scenarios where a module is repeatedly instantiated.