Wasm

[makc]

This is not a real pull request but rather a simple test for #73

[pca006132]

It's great that there is a three.js demo (?). I think you can add the generated files to .gitignore so they won't be added to the commit.

[makc]

ok, noted, but how would I integrate it into the build? e g how to run this long ass emcc command during/after make?

[pca006132]

You can modify this and test it in GitHub Action:

manifold/.github/workflows/manifold.yml

Lines 70 to 101 in aa5badd

	build_wasm:
	runs-on: ubuntu-20.04
	if: github.event.pull_request.draft == false
	steps:
	- name: Install dependencies
	run: |
	sudo apt-get -y update
	DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive sudo apt install -y python3 nodejs
	- uses: actions/checkout@v3
	with:
	submodules: true
	- name: Setup WASM
	run: |
	# setup emscripten
	git clone https://github.com/emscripten-core/emsdk.git
	cd emsdk
	./emsdk install latest
	./emsdk activate latest
	- uses: jwlawson/actions-setup-cmake@v1.12
	- name: Build WASM
	run: |
	source ./emsdk/emsdk_env.sh
	# patch assimp
	patch third_party/assimp/code/CMakeLists.txt < assimp.diff
	mkdir build
	cd build
	emcmake cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release .. && emmake make
	- name: Test WASM
	run: |
	cd build/test
	node ./manifold_test.js

[elalish]

This is a great demo, thank you! Let's see if we can get this building in the CI. I wonder what the easiest way to test it end-to-end would be?

[elalish]

Love it; does this name even show up anywhere in the actual WASM blob?

[makc]

it is not in manifold.js at least; emscripten docs say this:

a label to mark a group of related bindings (for example EMSCRIPTEN_BINDINGS(physics), EMSCRIPTEN_BINDINGS(components), etc.)

[elalish]

This is interesting, and gets at some of the discussion around removing or changing exception handling: #141. Is there no way for C++ exceptions to automatically throw JS exceptions with WASM?

[makc]

@elalish it does throw all the way to js but the message you get is just some random number (maybe a pointer to exception object somewhere in wasm memory, Idk) - so, with puts(e.what()) you can at least see what was actually wrong on c++ side

[makc]

@elalish you can see what I mean by uncommenting new Module.Manifold(....) line in js instead - and passing the original geometry (without calling simplify(...) on it)

[elalish]

👍

[elalish]

💯

[elalish]

The CI isn't running because this is a draft PR. Feel free to mark it as ready for review so we can play with the automated builds. Don't worry, I'm not going to merge it in it's current state :)

[makc]

@elalish yea I just posted this to get some early feedback, I will do another one maybe this weekend or so