Thanks for your reply Alon. Looking to try out wasm soon :) On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 3:14:08 AM UTC+8, Alon Zakai wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>> > 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
