Andreas Rossberg
Andreas Rossberg
So it stores the entire memory in reverse. Interesting. I can see why, but that clearly breaks the memory API, regardless of whether we add auxiliary functions. So I am...
As far as I'm concerned, it's 1 right now. The API merely gives you a pointer to the memory. That contains a sequence of random bytes. There is no particular...
You'll have to be a bit more precise. ;)
If I understand your suggestion correctly, then it appears to be outside the scope of the current C API. It's not a flag we can simply introduce in the API,...
See https://github.com/WebAssembly/meetings/blob/main/process/proposal.md
That is an interesting point. A few questions/comments though. I think you meant a store parameter, not an engine parameter, as the store is the unit of isolation for all...
@syrusakbary, I don't see how that would make sense, care to elaborate?
Right, taking a store gives engines the choice to implement it per store or engine-global. For example, IIRC, Module::new would be unimplementable in V8 if it did not take a...
I see, that makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Adding a store parameter seems like the right way forward then. Except that I'm not sure what a good migration plan...
There is no versioning scheme so far. Initially I was hoping we can avoid breaking changes, following the general Wasm strategy. Also, this API could generally use an update to...