4 ms·
This was also attempted for Java bytecode but didn't really pan out. I think the benefit just wasn't there compared to JIT compiling for a regular processor. T
by goto11 7y ago
This was also attempted for Java bytecode but didn't really pan out. I think the benefit just wasn't there compared to JIT compiling for a regular processor.
The processes would have to translate the wasm into some form of register-based operations anyway, and a JIT compiler might be able to do this more efficiently since it can see a bigger picture than the processor.
- int_19h 7y agoJVM bytecode is very high-level though (it deals with objects, and has opcodes for method calls etc). Wasm is in this interesting spot where it's relatively low-level, but high-level enough to allow proper sandboxing. It strikes me that the arrangements to accommodate that, like call indirection via tables, could be optimized on CPU level. Not necessarily in a sense of a CPU that directly runs wasm, but rather a CPU architecture which is optimized to be a target for JIT or AOT compilers from wasm.
- marcthe12 7y agoI wonder it's small enough to have the interpreter in kernel space