166486 2016-12-26 16:51:05 -0800 WebAssembly -> JS: don't do a double entry 2017-01-02 17:31:45 -0800 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit JavaScriptCore WebKit Nightly Build Unspecified Unspecified NEW P2 Normal --- 165282 161709 1 jfbastien webkit-unassigned jfbastien keith_miller saam oldest_to_newest 1262781 0 jfbastien 2016-12-26 16:51:05 -0800 We have createJSToWasmWrapper as well as WebAssemblyFunction::call. We should merge the two, probably to B3 code or MacroAssembler code. 1262782 1 jfbastien 2016-12-26 16:52:01 -0800 Let's also figure out what vmEntryToWasm should be. 1263371 2 jfbastien 2017-01-02 17:31:45 -0800 We should also consider optimizing as discussed here: > > > > Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/js/WebAssemblyInstanceConstructor.cpp:90 > > > > + // Always start with a dummy Memory, so that wasm -> wasm thunks avoid checking for a nullptr Memory when trying to set pinned registers. > > > > + Wasm::Memory memory; > > > > + instance->setMemory(vm, JSWebAssemblyMemory::create(vm, exec->lexicalGlobalObject()->WebAssemblyMemoryStructure(), WTFMove(memory))); > > > > > > This makes me wonder if we're better off just having the callee instead of > > > caller generate a wasm->wasm call thunk. Maybe we should do that in a later > > > patch, or at least have a bug open to consider it. > > > > Yeah I guess we could have an off-to-the-side entrypeint from "other wasm", > > in addition to the regular "entry from this wasm instance", for all of the > > exported functions. We'd need to also change the callee codegen, but then we > > wouldn't need to tail (or rather, we'd inline that tail). > > > > That could be more efficient. > Yeah, let's open a bug and deal with it later.