Remove SHELL_FILE setting?

[sbc100]

This setting is completely untested, and it looks like it allows the user to override the JS shell file from the default of src/shell.js or src/shell_minimal.js.

These shell files used be split into two sections with {{BODY}} in the middle but it looks like this feature isn't needed either since both our shell files end when with {{BODY}} with no further content.

If we do have users of -sSHELL_FILE out there they would have to constantly work to keep their shell.js ABI in sync with all changes to emscripten, so it seems unlikely there are any.

Should I add a warning if they settings is used, and then remove it completely in a few releases?

[sbc100]

@kripken @juj, do you remember if this feature used to have use case?

[sbc100]

Looks like this settings was added back in 659a28a but I don't see any usage of it in the intervening time.

[kripken]

We have --shell-file which is well-tested. I would have thought that that sets the internal setting SHELL_FILE, but it looks like it does not, as you found, which is very odd...

I don't think SHELL_FILE even works. When I try it it errors on not finding the file I give it. My guess is that at some point we refactored things to --shell-file no longer uses SHELL_FILE, and all shell file handling is in emcc.py. But we forgot to remove SHELL_FILE.

Given it appears broken anyhow, I think we can just remove it now.

[sbc100]

--shell-file is the html shell. That is configurable, and tested, but is unrealted to this settings, as you have found.

[sbc100]

It is possible to use -sSHELL_FILE if

1. You have it an absolute path
2. You include {{BODY}} in there
3. You define all the same things as our default shell.js file.

Seems very unlikely anyone is doing that.

[kripken]

I see, thanks.

I agree, sgtm to remove.

[juj]

Agreed, this is an ancient option, not in use for a long time.

I have been looking at the idea of merging preamble + shell + postamble into one minimal_runtime_template.js file. Having those three separate JS files seems a bit artificial, and it feels like expanding the output page from template page might be simpler overall.