Still too early. The spec isn't final and browsers don't support it yet. Hopefully over the next few months, though.
Emscripten+Binaryen support for emitting wasm was done early, so that we know it's all ready for when browsers are. Also to help test browsers by emitting content for them to try on. Performance, however, will not change much. asm.js in most browsers today is already running close to native speed, minus some sandboxing, so we can't expect a big change there. However, some things will help, like hardware min/max, load/store with offset. But I would guess less than 5% speedup in throughput. (On the other hand, asm.js will get SIMD and threads before wasm, so there will be a period where it is faster.) Code size should be noticeably smaller. At least 33%. And startup should be far faster as well due to avoiding parsing JS and going straight from binary to codegen (10x or more for the parse stage). On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:10 AM, awt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I understand that Emscripten can now emit WebAssembly thru Binaryen but is > the generated WebAssembly supported on Chrome or Firefox? > > Do we also have any benchmarks on the performance as well as code size? > Thanks. > > -- > 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]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
