Skip to content

docs(CHANGELOG): ref. #4400 directly in v23 entry #6488

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2024
Merged

docs(CHANGELOG): ref. #4400 directly in v23 entry #6488

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion CHANGELOG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ This may not sound exciting, but let us convince you otherwise! All major web br

WGPU also benefits from standard, portable behavior in the same way as web browsers. Because of this behavior, it's generally fairly easy to port over usage of WebGPU in JavaScript to WGPU. It is also what lets WGPU go full circle: WGPU can be an implementation of WebGPU on native targets, but _also_ it can use _other implementations of WebGPU_ as a backend in JavaScript when compiled to WASM. Therefore, the same dynamic applies: if WGPU's own behavior were significantly different, then WGPU and end users would be _sad, sad humans_ as soon as they discover places where their nice apps are breaking, right?

The answer is: yes, we _do_ have sad, sad humans that really want their WGPU code to work _everywhere_. As Firefox and others use WGPU to implement WebGPU, the above example of Firefox diverging from standard is, unfortunately, today's reality. It _mostly_ behaves the same as a standards-compliant WebGPU, but it still doesn't in many important ways. Of particular note is Naga, its implementation of the WebGPU Shader Language. Shaders are pretty much a black-and-white point of failure in GPU programming; if they don't compile, then you can't use the rest of the API! And yet, it's extremely easy to run into this:
The answer is: yes, we _do_ have sad, sad humans that really want their WGPU code to work _everywhere_. As Firefox and others use WGPU to implement WebGPU, the above example of Firefox diverging from standard is, unfortunately, today's reality. It _mostly_ behaves the same as a standards-compliant WebGPU, but it still doesn't in many important ways. Of particular note is Naga, its implementation of the WebGPU Shader Language. Shaders are pretty much a black-and-white point of failure in GPU programming; if they don't compile, then you can't use the rest of the API! And yet, it's extremely easy to run into a case like that from <https://github.com/gfx-rs/wgpu/issues/4400>:

```wgsl
fn gimme_a_float() -> f32 {
Expand Down