Repository navigation
Support WebAssembly.instantiateStreaming #21130
Description
I think it's better support WebAssembly.instantiateStreaming.
It makes more easy to use WebAssembly and we can get more compatibility for Web.
It already implemented in Google Chrome, Firefox and some browsers.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/WebAssembly/instantiateStreaming
instantiateStreaming already exists in deps/v8/src/wasm/wasm-js.cc but cannot cover this branch.
node/deps/v8/src/wasm/wasm-js.cc
Lines 1177 to 1182 in de73272
| if (isolate->wasm_compile_streaming_callback() != nullptr) { | |
| InstallFunc(isolate, webassembly, "compileStreaming", | |
| WebAssemblyCompileStreaming, 1); | |
| InstallFunc(isolate, webassembly, "instantiateStreaming", | |
| WebAssemblyInstantiateStreaming, 1); | |
| } |
To cover this branch, we must call SetWasmCompileStreamingCallback.
Line 7805 in de73272
| void SetWasmCompileStreamingCallback(ApiImplementationCallback callback); |
Lines 8876 to 8877 in de73272
| CALLBACK_SETTER(WasmCompileStreamingCallback, ApiImplementationCallback, | |
| wasm_compile_streaming_callback) |
In chromium, implemented here:
https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/51459d663d841c6430747aec97be9f7e7a7ca41f/third_party/blink/renderer/bindings/core/v8/v8_wasm_response_extensions.cc#L194-L222
And use it here:
https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/51459d663d841c6430747aec97be9f7e7a7ca41f/third_party/blink/renderer/bindings/core/v8/v8_wasm_response_extensions.cc#L228
Why we must inject the actual implementation,
It's said that this is for layering reasons.
WebAssembly/design#1085
Discussion
- How about it?
- How to make
instantiateStreamingcompatible with design.- ex.
instantiateStreaming(fs.promises.readFile('./some.wasm'), importObject)- It's not compatible with design.
- readFile returns
Buffer, notArrayBuffer.
- ex.
Activity
devsnek commentedon Jun 5, 2018
The design of instantiateStreaming currently requires
Responseto perform proper checks for stuff like mimes and whatnot. While node could implement instantiateStreaming possibly taking a node Stream object i don't think its worth splintering the wasm api between browsers and node. For some reasons i won't go into here node might gain a Response object anyway (and we're already working on mimes over in #21128) so once we get that stuff in this could be done.AyushG3112 commentedon Jun 5, 2018
While I understand that implementing WebAssembly for isomorphism might be good, but, for native modules, we already have Native and N-API addons. This would just be throwing another one into the mix.
devsnek commentedon Jun 5, 2018
@AyushG3112 we already support wasm, this would just be adding another method of loading it.
AyushG3112 commentedon Jun 5, 2018
@devsnek ah, I did not know that. Nevermind my comment then, and thanks!
bnoordhuis commentedon Jun 5, 2018
What is the use case besides feature parity with browsers?
WebAssembly.instantiateStreaming()seems of limited usefulness in Node.js. LikewiseWebAssembly.compileStreaming().That would be fairly straightforward to implement but I share @devsnek's sentiment that we shouldn't diverge from browsers lightly.
Pray tell!
Leko commentedon Jun 5, 2018
@devsnek @bnoordhuis I totally agree.
I think it should be implemented the same API as browser.
bnoordhuis commentedon Jun 5, 2018
Okay, but can you speak to your use case? As I said, I don't really see when or why you'd use it with Node.js.
Leko commentedon Jun 5, 2018
@bnoordhuis My use case is image processor what work on browser and Node.js implemented by WebAssembly.
And small wrapper for loading it.
BTW, I think we decide to implement Fetch API or not prior to start this discussion.
It already discussing in this issue: #19393 (comment)
bnoordhuis commentedon Jun 5, 2018
I can see why you'd load it in streaming fashion in a browser but why in Node.js? If it's an on-disk file, just load it in one go.
Leko commentedon Jun 7, 2018
@bnoordhuis
Personally, The most important reason is portability.
I want to use instantiateStreaming because Google recommended way of loading WebAssembly to use WebAssembly.*Streaming.
But cannot use instantiateStreaming if planned to run both Node.js and browser.
xtuc commentedon Jun 26, 2018
What if the WebAssembly loading and instantiation is done is a separate worker and posted to the main thread?
Also FYI https://github.com/wasm-tool/node-loader. I know that @bmeck is working a multi-threaded loading which would fit well to this use case.
11 remaining items
devsnek commentedon Apr 12, 2022
👀
lib,src: implement WebAssembly Web API
lib,src: implement WebAssembly Web API
lib,src: implement WebAssembly Web API