41–50 of 375 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is joke - we had 'Chrome won' the other day. There is a hidden point being made which you would probably agree with.
i hate how HN now has titles that require knowing previous posts to understand. That's the domain of reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>nothing checks that the output of WebAssembly is safe machine code. The JS/WASM VM does. If unsafe WASM code is allowed to execute, there is a bug in VM. VM must prevent semantically incorrect WASM from executing Control flow integrity and incorrect use of pointers are detected at load time. There are traps for invalid indexes, exceeding stack limits, invalid indexes in the index space.
This is not about unsafe WASM which should be rejected by verifier. This is about the raw machine output that the compiler generates from WASM. As with JIT for JS currently nothing verifies WASM compiler output. So a bug in the compiler may result in a WASM that passes the verifier to be translated into unsafe machine code.
(I should not need to mention this but compiling is form of verification).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is joke - we had 'Chrome won' the other day. There is a hidden point being made which you would probably agree with.
i hate how HN now has titles that require knowing previous posts to understand. That's the domain of reddit.
I think this is a good thing. It probably prevented a new DirectX style dark age of the web. Probably! I don't pretend to be able predict what path companies would have went in the next few years. It's really good to see that there is a will to agree and that there is more than one player. Could always be more, also for keeping standards sane. (WebSQL officially failed because there isn't more variety)
DirectX was hardly a dark age, DX8 and onwards was a step ahead of GL.
Is WASM platform independent?
To the extent that asm.js and JavaScript are, yes. Everything is well-defined, so in theory any Turing machine should be able to run it, but it's certainly going to be easier to implement efficiently on a typical modern 32-bit or 64-bit CPU in a computer or phone than on something more unusual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand what "the compiler is trusted" means. What could an evil compiler really do? Maybe add a spinning loop to waste CPU cycles, but that can be done in JS too.
Both PNaCl and WebAssembly need a compiler to a get the machine code run by CPU, but the output of PNaCl is checked via NaCl verifier while nothing checks that the output of WebAssembly is safe machine code. As the verifier for NaCl is likely to be an order magnitude smaller than a component in WebAssembly implementation that verifies and compiles the bytecode to the native code, PNaCl attack surface is much smaller.
Why is this so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i hate how HN now has titles that require knowing previous posts to understand. That's the domain of reddit.
I've seen this on HN, going back to at least 2007 or 2008.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i hate how HN now has titles that require knowing previous posts to understand. That's the domain of reddit.
I mean, titles referencing previous articles has been a thing for a very long time - see X Considered Harmful as an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is joke - we had 'Chrome won' the other day. There is a hidden point being made which you would probably agree with.
i hate how HN now has titles that require knowing previous posts to understand. That's the domain of reddit.
Also known as "culture". It's part of what keeps communities alive, and I don't think it's bad in and of itself.