Skip to content
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

Switch & upgrade to quickjs-ng 7.0.0 #216

Open
p-bakker opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Switch & upgrade to quickjs-ng 7.0.0 #216

p-bakker opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@p-bakker
Copy link

quickjs-ng 7.0.0 has been released, so would be nice to update this project to that version

Additionally, it seems that quickjs-ng has much more traction than quickjs, so maybe make quickjs-ng the default?

@justjake
Copy link
Owner

I don’t know how CMake works, so I’m reluctant to add a dependency on CMake to this project. If you want to maintain the quickjs-ng variants I’m happy to accept a PR updating the build process to work with quickjs-ng 7

@p-bakker
Copy link
Author

Afraid I probably know less than you about how CMake works... :-/

@saghul
Copy link

saghul commented Jan 30, 2025

@justjake Hey there! Can you point me to where you build quickjs? I can help.

@justjake
Copy link
Owner

@saghul id appreciate the support. I template Variant.mk into each variant, then run make per variant to produce the final wasm and/or js files

@justjake
Copy link
Owner

Here’s the make rule for quickjs:

$(BUILD_QUICKJS)/%.o: $(QUICKJS_ROOT)/%.c $(WASM_SYMBOLS) | $(EMCC_SRC)

@justjake
Copy link
Owner

I think one issue I encountered trying to adapt newer quickjs-ng is that it’s harder to enable malloc_usable_size and other memory accounting features in quickjs-ng for Emscripten environment. Emscripten appears to provide a malloc_usable_size but perhaps the original authors thought it’s a useless feature in web? Or maybe it has bugs? But between cmake being intimidating and some of the ifdef changes I gave up on quickjs-ng

@saghul
Copy link

saghul commented Feb 3, 2025

I'll look into this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants