-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
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
Update wasmtime (v24.0.0) #406
Conversation
Ran CI. Looks like:
|
a55a2d8
to
4478994
Compare
Looks like buildifier and wasmtime remain. Wasmtime build error:
|
Yep iterating on it locally. I suspect The wasmtime build failure is related to the fact that wasmtime no longer vendors WASM-c-api so I'm figuring out how to make the new pathing with Bazel |
|
Looks like CI is pretty much passing except for buildifier (I have the fix staged locally) and this random windows failure. I wonder if it's related to #368 (comment) |
Looks like rules_rust no longer aims to support Windows: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_rust/blob/main/docs/index.md#supported-platforms. The current Windows failure seems to be a weird interaction with the Windows linker and path escaping: all of the file paths be linked use a combination of backslashes and escaped forward slashes
but the final error has all forward slashes
@PiotrSikora @martijneken @mpwarres can you advise on the support goals for Wasmtime windows in this repo? With Envoy and rules_rust turning down CI, does it make sense to do the same here? |
I don't feel strongly about supporting Wasmtime for Windows, since our dependencies don't support it. Could we keep NullVM on Windows (no Rust, passing) while ditching Wasmtime on Windows (depends on Rust)? @PiotrSikora WDYT |
There is a big gap here - all Wasm engines other than Wasmtime. Notably, Wasmtime on Windows is the only build on the CI executing real WasmVM code paths (because it is the fastest to compile), so it would be helpful to add tests using another Wasm engine on Windows, before removing Wasmtime on Windows... assuming that you want to support it at all. cc @shukitchan for ATS, which relies on proxy-wasm-cpp-host. |
If any other proxy implementations have windows expertise, I'd appreciate the help/guidance! |
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.
Nitpicking as usual, but could this be split into rules_rust
update followed by Wasmtime update?
I can give it a try |
#410 opened. @mpwarres @PiotrSikora @martijneken can one of you kick off CI? |
Could you rebase this on top of |
This requires extracting WORKSPACE phases into more phases: - dependencies -- py_repositories() and toolchains - dependencies_python() -- pip_parse module loading - dependencies_import() -- python/fuzzing/other deps The new structure roughly matches Envoy WORKSPACE: - envoy_dependencies() - envoy_dependencies_extra() -- not needed here - envoy_python_dependencies() - envoy_dependency_imports() Signed-off-by: Martijn Stevenson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martijn Stevenson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
58b260d
to
334f0b3
Compare
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
CI looks mostly good after the rebase + update. @PiotrSikora @mpwarres @martijneken what's the final verdict on Windows support? |
I think it would be useful to have something working, even if it's not Wasmtime, but I don't have a horse in this race, so the final decision is up to @mpwarres and @martijneken who are the current maintainers. |
My individual opinion is that the same considerations that led Bazel and Envoy to drop support for Windows CI (insufficient Windows expertise + lack of resources to track down Windows issues) apply here as well, plus the way that we build Wasmtime depends on rules_rust which no longer supports Windows, so we'd be on shaky ground. I'm in favor of dropping the Wasmtime Windows CI action, but keeping NullVm as a safeguard against total bitrot on Windows, leaving the option of reintroducing support in the future should circumstances change. @martijneken WDYT? |
Looks like WAMR on windows still passes in CI (confirmed in #413). Can I get some reviews on that and I'll rebase once that merges |
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <[email protected]>
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.
Thanks!
@mpwarres @martijneken is this in a good enough state to merge? |
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.
Removed the wasmtime-windows CI action as required. Should be good to merge now.
Builds on top of #404 and #402