You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I couldn't figure out the answer by reading the overview.
Is it planned to be able for host functions to add more memories to an already-running Wasm instance?
There are a couple of use cases that would need this:
A Wasm module could ask the host to spawn another Wasm module, in which case it is desirable to share a memory between the parent and the child for "inter-process" ("inter-instance") communication.
Dynamic memory creation would essentially require first-class memories, i.e., a sort of memoryref type and corresponding instructions. That is certainly a useful feature, but far more involved (both design and implementation-wise), and hence out of scope for the current proposal. This one is merely a straightforward generalisation of the existing memory semantics that mirrors what we already did for tables.
I couldn't figure out the answer by reading the overview.
Is it planned to be able for host functions to add more memories to an already-running Wasm instance?
There are a couple of use cases that would need this:
mmap
.Might be related to #9
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: