<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - WebAssembly: test compile / instantiate in a Worker"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166480#c6">Comment # 6</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - WebAssembly: test compile / instantiate in a Worker"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166480">bug 166480</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:sbarati@apple.com" title="Saam Barati <sbarati@apple.com>"> <span class="fn">Saam Barati</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=166480#c5">comment #5</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=166480#c4">comment #4</a>)
> > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=166480#c3">comment #3</a>)
> > > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=166480#c2">comment #2</a>)
> > > > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=166480#c1">comment #1</a>)
> > > > > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=166480#c0">comment #0</a>)
> > > > > > I've heard from someone trying out WebAssembly that they current use compile
> > > > > > / instantiate in a worker because some implementations aren't asynchronous.
> > > > > > They want to do work on the main thread while compiling, so a Worker makes
> > > > > > sense. They then transfer the Module / Instance back to the main thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We should have a test that this works well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Related:
> > > > > > - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous
> > > > > > <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - WebAssembly: Make WebAssembly.compile truly asynchronous"
href="show_bug.cgi?id=166016">https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166016</a>
> > > > > > - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API
> > > > > > <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - WebAssembly: Implement the WebAssembly.instantiate API"
href="show_bug.cgi?id=165982">https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165982</a>
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this should work as expected regardless of the compile API being
> > > > > asynchronous internally.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I agree we should have a test for this.
> > >
> > > Right, I want to make sure postMessage-ing Module / Instance / Memory /
> > > Table all work as expected.
> >
> > Interesting. Is that the expected behavior? This is unlike anything we do
> > elsewhere. We don't postMessage heap cells since each worker is in a
> > different VM
>
> I don't know what's expected :-D</span >
We won't be able to compile a Module then ship over the module across workers. We will be able to have workers that have their own Modules/Instances/etc that can run independently. We need to think about what happens when we try to ship over an ArrayBuffer for Memory. This should probably not be allowed since it's backed by Wasm::Memory mmaped memory.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>