[kevingadd]

Sadly the current iteration of WASM GC is still too limited for stuff like JVM or C# garbage collection semantics without jumping through a lot of hoops. I'm optimistic that in a few years there will be an expanded version of it that more runtimes can adopt, though.

#1 is a pet grievance of mine though. The intentional choice not to build mmap or read-only pages into the WASM memory model is really frustrating.

[ledgerdev]

I've been wondering how WASM GC works with multiple wasm modules, it sounds like you might know. Does WASM GC exist outside individual modules managing memory for many, or is it "contained" inside each module? Does it allow for efficient sharing and minimal copies of memory between modules when host calls both?

For example say you have some data like (eg. string "abc123") in host memory and then pass into module A which then reads/operates the data, and then returns some other data to the host. The host then calls into module B passing the original host data and data returned from call to module A. Can that original host data be shared efficiently and managed by WASM GC between modules?

[kevingadd]

I'm not aware of any reason why what you're describing wouldn't work. At least in a browser tab, all the wasm modules will share the same JavaScript GC heap, so the string data should be sharable between the modules if it's passed around as a GC reference.

[titzer]

Are you referring to the weak references or to interior pointers? What I've been surprised by over the years it that a simplified, perhaps slightly broken version of a language comes to Wasm first, then as features expand, more of the guest language features, libraries, platform, and ecosystem comes, piece by piece. CheerpJ claims to have a fully-featured JVM, and Google is fielding Java compiled to Wasm GC with pretty good results. Wasm is bringing these platforms over piece by piece; so far there haven't been few "boom, here's full Language X on Wasm" moments. Instead we're progressing quite incrementally.

[kevingadd]

Interior pointers and WRs are both basically mandatory, yeah. I have faith they'll arrive eventually.

I think incremental progress is generally great, but since we already have 'all of .NET' in WASM by shipping our own GC, end users seem like they wouldn't be happy with 'we use WASM GC now and all of your code is broken'

EDIT: We also have dependent handles in a few places, and I'm not sure how you'd do those without a more sophisticated GC. But it's probably possible and they're at least not used as widely as WRs.

[neonsunset]

Quite a bit of code may end up relying on a CWT because a dependency uses assembly-unloading-friendly cache internally, hopefully it fails gracefully once .NET switches to WASM GC...