Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
spidermonkey.dev
Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#2ARM already have a special instruction `FJCVTZS` to accelerate JavaScript. If WebAssembly gets popular enough there will probably be hardware acceleration for it.
https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architecture...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50966676/why-do-arm-chip...
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#3Love to visit untrusted websites that feel entitled to over 4gb ram without asking.
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#4The reason I don't use WebAssembly is that browsers do not support the text format.
Often it is just a tiny loop that one wants to optimize. Writing it manually in WAT would be nice. But adding a whole toolchain and a compile step to the stack is not worth it.
Shouldn't it be straight forward to compile WAT to WASM? I hope one day browsers will support it.
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#5The reason I don't use WebAssembly is that browsers do not support the text format. Often it is just a tiny loop that one wants to optimize. Writing it manually in WAT would be nice. But adding a whole toolchain and a compile step to the stack is not worth it. Shouldn't it be straight forward to compile WAT to WASM? I hope one day browsers will support it.
You can do that easily with binaryen already, and make use of parseText().
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#6Unless you want to install a crypto miner to run locally on someone's machine when they visit a website.
Now possible with this as well as even more capable closed-source untrusted binary blobs with DRM running amock on your machine.
Mozilla (a member part of the W3C) and was supposed to stop such DRM-like software from reaching the web. They have proven to be powerless to allow such software like this to be approved as a web standard.
The ones cheering WASM are the ones who absolutely love DRM and malware blobs in your machine now accessible in the browser.
This is a massive failure of the so-called "Open Web".
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#7"How do browsers take advantage of this fact? By reserving 4GB of memory for every single WebAssembly module."
Does reserve mean it has exclusive access to? Because it can't possibly be that every single wasm module takes 4GB!
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#8"How do browsers take advantage of this fact? By reserving 4GB of memory for every single WebAssembly module." Does reserve mean it has exclusive access to? Because it can't possibly be that every single wasm module takes 4GB!
It's really reserving 4GB of the process's own address space, but the only part of it that physical memory has to get used for is the part that actually has stuff stored in it.
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#9The reason I don't use WebAssembly is that browsers do not support the text format. Often it is just a tiny loop that one wants to optimize. Writing it manually in WAT would be nice. But adding a whole toolchain and a compile step to the stack is not worth it. Shouldn't it be straight forward to compile WAT to WASM? I hope one day browsers will support it.
[deleted]
Re: Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
#10Love to visit untrusted websites that feel entitled to over 4gb ram without asking.
4 GB VA space. Page tables aren’t that expensive.