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

Modules (form) #430

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Modules (form) #430

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

burrbull
Copy link
Member

Closes #424 .

r? @therealprof

Speed tests are needed

@burrbull burrbull requested a review from a team as a code owner January 14, 2020 07:58
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-tools labels Jan 14, 2020
@therealprof
Copy link
Contributor

That's very nice! Need to have a closer look this evening.

@burrbull
Copy link
Member Author

@therealprof you promised to look

@therealprof
Copy link
Contributor

Didn't get to it, sorry. Maybe I can squeeze it in later today.

@therealprof
Copy link
Contributor

I had a look. svd2rust runtime goes through the roof with the -foption, it takes 10x as long in my tests to dump the code. There's no change in build/check times of the generated code.

It would be great to see some noticeable benefit somewhere.

@therealprof
Copy link
Contributor

The Module is a rather weird implementation causing quite a few clippy lints and warnings in case the superfluous #[allow(dead_code)] are removed.

We should also get rid of all the panics and instead implement proper error handling.

@burrbull burrbull marked this pull request as draft April 17, 2021 04:06
@duskmoon314
Copy link
Contributor

Any plan on this?

Recently I tried the logic of xtask in esp-pacs on d1-pac, which first generates lib.rs and then transforms it into modules in src. Much simpler than this implementation in my mind.
esp-pacs
d1-pac

it takes 10x as long in my tests to dump the code.

I am not familiar with improving performance. Taking a simple look at the flame graph of executing xtask gen d1, I found that form::create_directory_structure is indeed costly. But I don't feel it annoying since I always use form after generating code with svd2rust.

The flame graph:
flamegraph

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-tools
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Integrate form
4 participants