I opened https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/issues/9410
now to track this. It does look like we should figure it out before switching to the new backend. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:12 AM 'Thomas Lively' via emscripten-discuss < [email protected]> wrote: > “'Proxying EM_ASM calls is not yet implemented in Wasm backend” is > certainly a little vague, but it means the upstream LLVM wasm backend, as > opposed to the older Fastcomp backend which also compiles to WebAssembly > but does so indirectly via asm.js. It sounds like this feature is not yet > available in upstream-latest, unfortunately. > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 23:33 Hostile Fork <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I wanted to try out `upstream-latest`, to absorb the impact of >> "Asyncify"...looks like a superior answer to our emterpreter build, and so >> far seems fine! Nice work! >> >> But this latest version seems to be causing problems with the >> USE_PTHREADS=1 build. As far as I can tell, it's ignoring the >> `MAIN_THREAD_` part of MAIN_THREAD_EM_ASM(). If the request is submitted >> from a worker, it still runs on the worker. (The same code works as >> expected in an older emsdk version, for instance with `emcc --version` of >> 1.38.28.) >> >> I dug a little into what might have changed in the code, and it looks >> like things have definitely become more nuanced, with "proxied function >> invokers": >> >> >> https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/commit/60e47eff970c97b52772470806d2c81b3b1a32bf#diff-cc4345db19ff44863e9122c74e9f383fR1728 >> >> I'm a bit worried about this line in particular: >> >> @no_wasm_backend('Proxying EM_ASM calls is not yet implemented in >> Wasm backend') >> >> Discussed some here as well: >> >> >> https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/pull/6189#discussion_r227360878 >> >> I'm not clear on what backend it would work on if not WASM, as there >> doesn't seem to be pthreads support for the JS backend. (?) >> >> Is MAIN_THREAD_EM_ASM() supposed to work? I didn't cook up a minimal >> example to test it, due to seeing these comments (and my usage seems pretty >> straightforward). But if it's believed to be an error in my usage I can >> look deeper into it, just wanted to check on the meaning of these "not >> implemented" remarks first. >> >> Thanks, >> --Brian >> http://hostilefork.com >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "emscripten-discuss" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/c97732a3-9626-48dc-8c47-0ec83caca0ac%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/c97732a3-9626-48dc-8c47-0ec83caca0ac%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "emscripten-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAJZD_EVsEOYjVU3LBKc43KKM619doaHZzaRzsBaN_39_hCxnOg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAJZD_EVsEOYjVU3LBKc43KKM619doaHZzaRzsBaN_39_hCxnOg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAEX4NpRaDU21oe0hKzf1s1Yera75cvz6V1YD6anG6ixZzoyc1Q%40mail.gmail.com.
