[PATCH] [WebAssembly] Skeleton WebAssembly target

[Rafael Espíndola]

Thanks! This is fine by me.
On Jun 19, 2015 5:10 PM, "Dan Gohman" <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Rafael Espíndola
> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am really happy to see this!
> >
> > I just tried to build it with cmake and got some errors:
> >
> > WebAssemblyInstPrinter.cpp:28:10: fatal error:
> > 'WebAssemblyGenAsmWriter.inc' file not found
> > WebAssemblyISelDAGToDAG.cpp:60:10: fatal error:
> > 'WebAssemblyGenDAGISel.inc' file not found
>
> Fixed now.
>
> > Do code models and relocation models have any meaning in webassembly?
>
> Ah, oops. Yes, WebAssembly doesn't need this (at least for now). I've
> now removed it.
>
> > Is SIMD an optional feature?
>
> Yes. There will be a few options, including using SIMD anyway, with
> emulation on platforms that don't actually have it, and dynamically
> querying whether SIMD is "fast" so that an application can decide what
> it wants to do.
>
> > Atomics? Is there a memory model? You mentioned that there is nothing
> > like C's undefined behavior...
>
> There will be full threading support with shared memory,
> synchronization primitives, and atomics. My earlier remark referred to
> undefined behavior in the C/C++ sense, in which the entire state of
> the program enters into jeopardy. With threads there is naturally some
> nondeterminsim, but the consequences of such nondeterminism have
> limits.
>
> > It is a bit funny that webassembly is an OS. Targeting web assembly
> > always implies the same apis, no?
>
> The meaning of the OS field in the target triple is usually about ABI
> concerns, rather than actual system call functionality. We're
> definitely planning for WebAssembly to have a common ABI when it comes
> time.
>
> Dan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150619/2d1a86ef/attachment.html>