refactor: cleanup runtime/memory code

[Wodann]

Depends on #140.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #142 into master will decrease coverage by 0.08%.
The diff coverage is 80.73%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #142      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.06%   81.98%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         160      160              
  Lines       10806    10816      +10     
==========================================
- Hits         8868     8867       -1     
- Misses       1938     1949      +11     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
crates/mun_runtime/src/struct.rs	76.80% <40.74%> (-9.32%)	⬇️
crates/mun_memory/src/mapping.rs	93.22% <86.20%> (-4.15%)	⬇️
crates/mun_memory/src/gc/mark_sweep.rs	86.55% <96.00%> (-0.16%)	⬇️
crates/mun_runtime/src/assembly.rs	63.63% <100.00%> (+2.45%)	⬆️
crates/mun_runtime/src/garbage_collector.rs	93.18% <100.00%> (+2.79%)	⬆️
crates/mun_runtime/src/lib.rs	72.04% <100.00%> (+0.30%)	⬆️
crates/mun_runtime/src/reflection.rs	54.34% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ecca852...5be9d5c. Read the comment docs.

[baszalmstra]

Looks nice, one questions: Would it be possible to add unsafe casting when hotloading? From u128 to u64 for example?

[Wodann]

Looks nice, one questions: Would it be possible to add unsafe casting when hotloading? From u128 to u64 for example?

@baszalmstra Yes, as I mentioned in the first discussion topic of PR #140, we can add non-guaranteed (or unsafe) casts, but when those fail they would result in zeroed memory. Would you be happy with that? If so, I'll create a new PR for that specific case.

[baszalmstra]

If a warning is emitted for that as well, that would be totally fine by me! :)