Ben L. Titzer
Ben L. Titzer
I would propose the following: Change the requirement to "must be implemented in 2 **relevant** production engines." The idea being that there may be proposals that are relevant to some...
> The 2-engines criterion in the process is a technical criterion to ensure feasibility of a feature in realistic implementations, not to ensure buy-in from vendors. I agree, and my...
I generally agree that such a JIT mechanism will need a way to specify new functions that have access to a module's internals. We definitely don't want to break the...
I don't see a JIT capability necessarily being dependent on function references. One could as well have an API where the result of JITing is inserted into a table at...
I support reserving `0xFF` for internal use, as long as feasible, and would support spec text to that effect.
+1 for an explicit reservation of `0xFF` as illegal. Wizard uses an illegal opcode to implement instrumentation and it would be good to know there will always be a 1-byte...
Isn't it such a beautiful contradiction to say that `invalid` is valid text instruction that encodes to a binary that must be rejected as invalid? Yes, yes it is :-)...
> I don't really understand the use case for permanently reserved (private) opcodes in engines. E.g. it is used in Wizard to overwrite instructions which have been instrumented so that...
V8 also internally translates asm.js into Wasm along the same lines as @eqrion described.
@MenloDorian How would `trap` differ from `unreachable`, which also traps?