←back to thread

Optimizing the Ion compiler back end

(spidermonkey.dev)
164 points undercut | 4 comments | 16 Oct 24 17:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.611s | source
Show context
zyedidia ◴[16 Oct 24 18:33 UTC] No.41862222[source]▶
Is there any AOT WebAssembly compiler that can compile Wasm used by websites? I tried locally compiling the Photoshop Wasm module mentioned in the article but the compilers I tried (Wasmtime, wasm2c, WAMR) all complained about some unsupported Wasm extension/proposal being required (exceptions seems like the blocker on wasmtime, and the others gave cryptic error messages).

Is it really the case that browsers have default-enabled all sorts of extensions that are not yet widely supported by the rest of the ecosystem?

replies(4): >>41862827 #>>41862830 #>>41863118 #>>41863297 #
1. Dylan16807 ◴[16 Oct 24 19:24 UTC] No.41862827[source]▶
> Is it really the case that browsers have default-enabled all sorts of extensions that are not yet widely supported by the rest of the ecosystem?

I don't know the answer, but it would be hard to blame them for following normal browser development practices on the standard they created for the purpose of being in browsers.

replies(1): >>41863641 #
2. zyedidia ◴[16 Oct 24 20:41 UTC] No.41863641[source]▶
Fair enough. I think it would be unfortunate if the WebAssembly language in browsers were a significantly different language than WebAssembly outside of browsers (just referring to language itself, not the overall runtime system). I don't think that has quite happened, and the outer ecosystem can probably catch up, but it worries me.
replies(2): >>41863748 #>>41868133 #
3. titzer ◴[16 Oct 24 20:51 UTC] No.41863748[source]▶
Non-browser environments are a little behind on the Wasm standard, but not by much. E.g. wasmtime has now landed support for Wasm GC. AFAIK they implement all phase 4 proposals. Wizard implements all the Phase 4 proposals as well. The Wasm 3.0 spec will be out soon, which will be a big milestone to motivate Wasm engines outside the Web to catch up.
4. pjmlp ◴[17 Oct 24 10:17 UTC] No.41868133[source]▶
We already had plenty of bytecode formats outside the browser since UNCOL was an idea in 1958, including as replacement for Assembly, with microcoded CPUs.

Now we get a couple of startups trying to make WebAssembly outside of the browser as if was a novel idea, never done before.