[zyedidia]

Is there any AOT WebAssembly compiler that can compile Wasm used by websites? I tried locally compiling the Photoshop Wasm module mentioned in the article but the compilers I tried (Wasmtime, wasm2c, WAMR) all complained about some unsupported Wasm extension/proposal being required (exceptions seems like the blocker on wasmtime, and the others gave cryptic error messages).

Is it really the case that browsers have default-enabled all sorts of extensions that are not yet widely supported by the rest of the ecosystem?

[kevingadd]

> Is there any AOT WebAssembly compiler that can compile Wasm used by websites?

This doesn't really make sense, given that the wasm used by websites is going to import a bunch of JS functions as dependencies. You're not going to have those available in any native environment.

> Is it really the case that browsers have default-enabled all sorts of extensions that are not yet widely supported by the rest of the ecosystem?

Yes

Photoshop in particular is a good example of a bleeding edge wasm app - browsers had to relax restrictions on things like function pointer table size in order for it to work. So I wouldn't expect it to build and run anywhere outside of v8 or spidermonkey.

[zyedidia]

I think one of the interesting aspects of WebAssembly compared to JavaScript is that it can be efficiently AOT-compiled. I've been interested in investigating AOT compilation for a browser (perhaps there is a distant/alternative future where web browsing does not require a JIT), but maybe Wasm AOT compilers aren't really there yet.

[kevingadd]

Functionally what browsers do under the hood is AOT compilation but not in the way that i.e. Wasmtime is. The following is my knowledge that may no longer be accurate, but this is the sort of model we planned for when designing WASM to begin with:

Browsers do a on-demand 'first tier' compilation for fast startup, and in the background using threads they do a high quality AOT compilation of the whole module. That high quality AOT compilation is cached and used for future page loads.

It is possible to use a JIT model for this but AFAIK it is typically not done. In some configurations (i.e. lockdown mode) WASM is interpreted instead of AOT compiled.

[hencq]

> It is possible to use a JIT model for this but AFAIK it is typically not done.

Isn't this what the last line of the article is hinting at? > our WebAssembly team is making great progress rearchitecting the Wasm compiler pipeline. This work will make it possible to Ion-compile individual Wasm functions as they warm up instead of compiling everything immediately.

[tombl]

I believe this is still true. Originally you could store a compiled wasm module in IndexedDB and cache it manually, but that was removed in favor of {instantiate,compile}Streaming, which take a HTTP response and hook into the existing HTTP caching layer, which was already storing the compliation output for JS.

[aseipp]

No, I think most of the AOT compilers in practice are a bit behind V8 and/or Spidermonkey for newer features. Realistically, most development driving new WASM features is motivated by website-ish use cases. Exception handling in particular is still not standardized so I guess it's expected that the browser engines would be the one to have the most evolving support (and the ability to test it thoroughly) because people want that platform as their inevitable target anyway.

[Dylan16807]

> Is it really the case that browsers have default-enabled all sorts of extensions that are not yet widely supported by the rest of the ecosystem?

I don't know the answer, but it would be hard to blame them for following normal browser development practices on the standard they created for the purpose of being in browsers.

[zyedidia]

Fair enough. I think it would be unfortunate if the WebAssembly language in browsers were a significantly different language than WebAssembly outside of browsers (just referring to language itself, not the overall runtime system). I don't think that has quite happened, and the outer ecosystem can probably catch up, but it worries me.

[titzer]

Non-browser environments are a little behind on the Wasm standard, but not by much. E.g. wasmtime has now landed support for Wasm GC. AFAIK they implement all phase 4 proposals. Wizard implements all the Phase 4 proposals as well. The Wasm 3.0 spec will be out soon, which will be a big milestone to motivate Wasm engines outside the Web to catch up.

[pjmlp]

We already had plenty of bytecode formats outside the browser since UNCOL was an idea in 1958, including as replacement for Assembly, with microcoded CPUs.

Now we get a couple of startups trying to make WebAssembly outside of the browser as if was a novel idea, never done before.