Sam Clegg

Perhaps the main difference in priorities stems from the fact in emscripten we want to support the existing users of shared libraries that we already have today? And you would...

I believe the name section allows the name of the module to be specified so that might make sense for the executable name, when it is present.

That sounds roughly analogous to the ELF world where a given process will have any number of ELF files mapped into address space, perhaps? One can even imagine the same...

This stuff is all rather web-specific, and probably won't apply if/when runtimes get actually shared-module threading. But then again the whole active/passive segment thing is web specific. @quantum5 is currently...

Could be either an upside or a downside: This might motivate us to actually make linker relaxation work which could have other benefits.

@sunfishcode @dschuff @tlively

Performance-wise I imagine that `global.get ` would be compiled down to the same thing as `i32.const` anyway right? I that is correct assumption then really just a code size question....

We do have an (off by default) option called `--compress-relocations` which can reclaim space, but we don't use it, or eve recommend using it. So yes you are right we...

So it sounds like there is no upside to (1), and that we don't need we will gain much from linker relaxation. But I think the other arguments for doing...

> Like @dschuff I also wonder how much linker relaxation affects linking speed. A variant of this proposal would be to emit imports for globals, but continue to codegen addresses...