wasmdec VS gpuweb

I think you're missing a good amount of nuance here

minified JS can be turned into reasonable JS, yes, but you're probably not going to get TypeScript code back, so the same sort of challenge exists there.

Assembly -> high-level language is harder, but there are absolutely binary -> C decompilers that are very popular/used in the RE community to make changes to existing programs.

But that doesn't even matter, WASM is much higher level than assembly, it's a stack machine, there is no arbitrary control flow / labels / `goto`, there are pre-defined data types, etc. all of this means it's easier to convert WASM -> high-level language than it is with a generic x86/arm binary.

There are WASM decompilers[0][1] which can convert WASM binaries into C code and back.

In both cases (minified JS and WASM), you're not going to get out exactly what you put in, but WASM doesn't really change the situation very much given the widespread adoption of 'compile to JS' languages like TypeScript these days.

[0] https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/github.com/WebAss...

[1] https://github.com/wwwg/wasmdec

There are wasm2c and wasmdec that decompile to C. There is also rewasm, which decompiles WASM to Rust. But I don't know if they can reconstruct non-trivial logic, e.g. shapes of structures.

Have you considered just transpiling it to C? Assuming it's the pseudocode you're after, that should be enough by itself. You could also lift it and recompile to whatever your preferred architecture is.

This is not less portable and will beat any wasm interpreter in terms of speed: https://github.com/wwwg/wasmdec

People keep spreading this incredibly misleading statement, and yours is even more misleading (suggesting Apple opposed a 'GPU WASM')

By all accounts, Apple's /only/ stance was that if WebGPU used SPIR-V it would be a non-starter for them, due to ongoing legal issues between Apple and Khronos.

Apple actually proposed WebHLSL in collaboration with Microsoft, to have HLSL be the standard.

Mozilla employee's stance[0] was that SPIRV was too low level, did not fit with the goals of WebGPU portability and security, and expressed concern that Khronos may add functionality to SPIRV they cannot support in WebGPU like raytracing instructions .. 'So we'd always be on the verge of forking SPIR-V in some way.'

It was also noted by many people that even if a bytecode format was used, it would still have to be translated to the target (HLSL/DXIL, MSL, etc.) in almost the same way a text format would.

Nobody proposed a 'GPU WASM equivalent' or an alternative bytecode format.

The hard truth is that shader compilation is a fucking nightmare, people do not realize how bad it is across the different native APIs. SPIR-V is good, but it doesn't solve that - and presents other challenges if you are a web browser API. Vulkan and SPIRV are not the golden goose many make them out to be.

[0] https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/847#issuecomment-642...

Yes it is still a bit new. WebGPU is not finished and is still being worked on: https://webgpu.io/

WebGPU currently doesn't support the "bindless" resource access model (see: https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/380).

The "max number of sampled texture per shader stage" is a runtime device limit, and the minimal value for that seems to be 16. So texture atlasses are still a thing in WebGPU.

There's even an implementation under discussion to have the dp4a instruction added to WebGPU (https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/2677)