Ben Smith

Sorry, I should have gone through these issues and updated them with info from the CG. Yes, the consensus as I understood it was to move forward with [solution 2](https://github.com/WebAssembly/threads/blob/master/proposals/threads/ConditionalSegmentInitialization.md#solution-2-provide-an-additional-initializer-expression-per-segment).

OK, I'll spend some time writing up this as an alternative soon.

We discussed this at the Nov 28 CG meeting. Some notes: * We agreed that allowing `init_memory` and `init_table` after instantiation is useful * We agreed that we don't want...

@RyanLamansky I like this idea, it makes things much simpler. Oh, I hadn't really thought about it, but do we want to add the `init_table` instruction before we have `set_table`...

> * If agent A calls grow_memory, and lets agent B know that it has done so by writing something into shared memory (maybe racily), can agent B when it...

> I think the final design should allow for implementations that require moving the memory, as well as for those that never move. It seems as many designs can work...

OK, I see what you're getting at. The part that confused me was that you said the "SAB's length field" which made me think you were talking about the JS...

Yes, though I think you could do this all lazily. Not sure if it would be worthwhile, but it may allow you to avoid stopping all threads. When one thread...

> Maybe this is something that could be flagged up for discussion at TPAC. I've added this as an item to the agenda planning issue: https://github.com/WebAssembly/meetings/issues/282

Good point, I had assumed we were waiting on some additional spec work to advance, but this looks like it can move to phase 3. The testsuite is on concern,...