Sam Clegg

> No and I don't even know what would that look like, with the current variety of real-world assembly syntaxes. AFAIK there isn't much baked in, and the output is...

> > No and I don't even know what would that look like, with the current variety of real-world assembly syntaxes. AFAIK there isn't much baked in, and the output...

> How complicated would it be to move LLVM to use WAT? Thats a good question. At the bare minimum it would require writing a completely new assembly parser and...

If you have a proposed fix then a PR would be most welcome. I'm not sure how easy this would be but perhaps you are right and it could be...

I don't know who currently handles the packaging for winget (or macOS, or the linux distros). Honestly, I think that stuff is likely best left of the downstream package maintainers...

Regarding your concerns (1) and (2), I completely agree. I do think we can and should address those. The nice thing about centralizing this mechanism is that when we do...

Marking this as draft until (1) and (2) can be addressed. The debugging changes I split out into https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/pull/25655

Does this mean that wasm legacy exceptions in general requires safari 26.2 in order to run? Should we update out feature matrix accordingly: https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/blob/64a850d2866fc99cc5ace1a2f3783f6aab8024e6/tools/feature_matrix.py#L138-L157 How about https://webassembly.org/features/ ?

> is legacy exceptions the `-fexceptions` ? Then this option was not affected ... it worked also safe in 26.0 -26.1. No, legacy wasm excptions are what you get by...

I'd be ok with landing https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/pull/25676 instead if we want to keep this around a little longer.