That's virtual address space, not physical RAM. E.g. (if my math is correct) 0.0015 percent of the available space per WASM process. I think that's acceptable ;)
Yes, but think of DCC applications like Figma which might run into the 4 GB restriction with large data sets, not regular websites which run a couple of WebGL demos written in C.
...also WASM is starting to become popular outside the browser where requirements might be very different from running stuff in webpages.
On the flip side, it would do you well to read this: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. As for the actual content of your comment, pages already have access to more than 4 GB of RAM. It's actually quite easy to do just from JavaScript.
That's virtual address space, not physical RAM. E.g. (if my math is correct) 0.0015 percent of the available space per WASM process. I think that's acceptable ;)
[flagged]
4 GB VA space. Page tables aren’t that expensive.
Isn't the whole reason they're adding 64 bit addresses to support websites which want to use over 4GiB? What other reason could there be?
The website may want to, but I don't.
Yes, but think of DCC applications like Figma which might run into the 4 GB restriction with large data sets, not regular websites which run a couple of WebGL demos written in C.
...also WASM is starting to become popular outside the browser where requirements might be very different from running stuff in webpages.
3 replies →
The Memory64 proposal is for >4gb space -- and specifically to use it, not just reserve it. Learn context before commenting.
On the flip side, it would do you well to read this: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. As for the actual content of your comment, pages already have access to more than 4 GB of RAM. It's actually quite easy to do just from JavaScript.
2 replies →