3 ms·
Then why not abandon wasm, and make this byte code a target for llvm?
by riotman 7y ago
Then why not abandon wasm, and make this byte code a target for llvm?
- ori_b 7y agoLLVM bitcode is CPU and ABI dependent, and isn't even stable between LLVM releases.
- riotman 7y agoBad question on my part. More relevant: Why wasm? From what I gather, js seems to already have a bytecode for their JIT runtime. Why not expose that so that we can have C++ in the web?
- singularity2001 7y agoI asked the same question, see below for interesting thread
- riotman 7y agosigh I think the modern web was a mistake from hacks of the 90s to share documents. Can we plz get a fresh restart from scratch?
- floatboth 7y ago> js seems to already have a bytecode for their JIT runtime This is kind of a nonsensical statement. JS itself doesn't have a bytecode, it's just a specification of the language you write scripts in. Each implementation has its own intermediate representations, including bytecode formats. WASM is a vendor-neutral standard that is designed as a compilation target and designed with safety in mind. SpiderMonkey/JSC/V8 internal bytecode formats are just that, compiler internals.
- saagarjha 7y agoThis isn’t a standard.