Andreas Rossberg

That would be part of the work for finalising the threads proposal, I'd say. One option is that the deterministic profile simply forbids shared memories (atomic instructions are fine when...

Wasmtime has a mode to normalise NaNs, which is sort of the Wasm 1.0/2.0 version of deterministic mode. That is needed e.g. by Consensus-based systems running Wasm, such as blockchains....

Yeah, let's not over-engineer it. If there is a need for a no-threads profile in the future, then that should be added as a separate profile — profiles ought to...

@eqrion, with the threads proposal, deterministic mode will have to disallow the creation of additional threads. That at least is what the consensus, reproducible builds, and similar scenarios need. Do...

Yeah, we know immediate users for full determinism. The other seems more hypothetical, so perhaps let's wait until somebody actually requests it.

Well, in 1.0/2.0 the two interpretations are indistinguishable. But for 3.0, at least the customers of that option that I'm aware of, need the "full determinism" interpretation.

Hm, interesting point. I assume that the platforms in question simply disable the threads extension, since Wasmtime allows that. That is exactly the kind of ad-hoc fragmentation I'd like to...

> My expectation is that anyone today who wants numeric determinism in their Wasm program already has to avoid/handle floating point NaNs, so avoiding relaxed SIMD (which is already explicitly...

> > I'd personally be fine seeing this proposal stripped of its "profile" component, and then have the spec reinterpreted as the "full" profile when we eventually work out how...

tlively: > I do agree that it would be nice if we didn't have to spec list non-determinism, but I also see it as a useful part of the proposal...