-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 350
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Some changes to revive WebAssembly support #2543
Conversation
Thanks for your contribution! Please make sure to follow our Commit Convention. |
Here is the commands used to build:
Note that I didn't bother changing the final command to build the wasm, so I added a followup command after The local paths used in the command was reported by executing emcmake alone first. |
void* self = dlopen(NULL, RTLD_LAZY); | ||
return dlsym(self, sym); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm puzzled by this; it look like the original code should work just fine, given it runs:
which shouldn't care whether you first run dlopen
:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks to me like this is no longer necessary after emscripten-core/emscripten@c4f7a55; what version of empscripten are we targeting?
Oops. It looks like I'm using a rather old docker image (https://hub.docker.com/r/trzeci/emscripten). I think that was recommended by the official doc but apparently it's already outdated. So I think you're right: it's not neccesary for recent emscripten versions.
PS: I'm setting up this PR for easier discussion and further experiment in zulip topic "wasm build" with other people. You can also help us there. Thank you! @eric-wieser
|
superseded by #2599 |
Put an X in this bracket to confirm you have read the
External Contribution Guidelines.
Please put the link to your
RFC
orbug
issue here.PRs missing this link will be marked as
missing RFC
.If that issue does not already have approval from a developer,
please be sure to open this PR in "Draft" mode.
Please make sure the PR has excellent documentation and tests.
If we label it
missing documentation
ormissing tests
then it needs fixing!You can manage the
awaiting-review
,awaiting-author
, andWIP
labelsyourself, by writing a comment containing one of these labels on its own line.