[amelius]

Strange that wasm doesn't support go-to instructions. Didn't they see the need for it coming? Most compiler backends need it, I suppose.

[obl]

I'm assuming it's because they wanted existing js/asm.js JITs to easily accept wasm, and those only see structured control flow.

[steveklabnik]

> Didn't they see the need for it coming?

Wasm exists because it's small and incremental; there's lots of stuff that's needed, but not in the initial spec. As long as it can be added in the future, that's what matters.

[hajile]

It's easier to add instructions than to remove our restrict them. Hardware or software exploits to break out of the sandbox are huge concerns. I'm all for introducing new features slowly.