Update FFI to be more portable and direct.#25
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
I'm not sure what core's policy is on module private FFI implementations. Do we consider this a breaking change? |
JordanMartinez
approved these changes
Aug 26, 2022
JordanMartinez
left a comment
JordanMartinez
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we have a clear policy on whether or not changing FFI counts as a breaking change. I think this is fine though.
Contributor
|
@thomashoneyman / @garyb Thoughts on this? |
garyb
approved these changes
Sep 22, 2022
Contributor
|
@natefaubion Mind adding a changelog entry? |
Member
|
This is internal so I don’t consider it breaking. |
thomashoneyman
approved these changes
Sep 22, 2022
Contributor
Author
|
I've updated the changelog. |
Contributor
|
Can this get a release? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of the change
This updates the timing FFI to not bind to
hrtimedirectly, which is an odd API in general, instead taking the closure directly and returning the expected nanoseconds.My primary motivation for doing this is that the existing framework does not work well with
purescript-backend-optimizer, which aggressively eliminates unused code. The current pattern after inlining results in an unused call tof, which means nothing ever gets executed. By using an opaque FFI call, the demand on the closure is kept, and everything works as expected. Normally I wouldn't suggest doing this arbitrarily for this tool, but I think this is a better binding anyway, and is likely easier for other backends to implement since it doesn't rely on the specifics of a Node API.Checklist: