4 ms·
> The existence of an LLVM WebAssembly backend helps. So why aren't people just shipping straight up LLVM intermediate language VMs and instead go through wasm
by beefhash 7y ago
> The existence of an LLVM WebAssembly backend helps.
So why aren't people just shipping straight up LLVM intermediate language VMs and instead go through wasm?
Incidentally, would you consider wasm as a destination language for virtual machines for obfuscation? I.e. is it reasonable enough to implement it all in about a week? Plus I fear like the decompilation/disassembly tooling might be there too soon for it to be a real viable option, but maybe nobody's been working on that yet.
- est31 7y agoLLVM IR is an unstable format, changes a lot and only has one implementation.So it's not well suited for a standard. Google actually did use it for PNaCl but fortunately Mozilla prevailed when wasm was created. "Do what LLVM does" is not a valid strategy. On a related note, I'm glad that Firefox doesn't support the "Do what sqlite does" WebSQL api either, but Chrome (sadly) does.
- jandem 7y ago> So why aren't people just shipping straight up LLVM intermediate language VMs and instead go through wasm? This is answered in the WebAssembly FAQ: https://webassembly.org/docs/faq/#why-not-just-use-llvm-bitcode-as-a-binary-format https://webassembly.org/docs/faq/#why-not-just-use-llvm-bitc...