Do you know when the next milestone checkpoint is going to be? Code size 
has always been a sticking point for us. I'd like to run a few experiments 
with release build optimizations enabled so that I can send around a demo 
link (bonus points if it works in multiple browsers). I've heard size 
reductions can be between 33-44% and I want to get a good idea of where my 
27MB app is going to land.

Floh, thank you for being an awesome vanguard! I bet those issues would 
have bitten us in the field if they had made it to release. 

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:19:41 AM UTC-4, Floh wrote:
>
> Main problem for someone playing around with WebAssembly at the moment is 
> IMHO that the required tools and publicly available web browsers are 
> getting out of sync every few weeks(?). You need the emscripten SDK, 
> binaryen, and a Spidermonkey JS build (I use the one from mozilla-central, 
> and compile myself), and there must be a browser which supports the current 
> version of emitted WebAssembly (usually the latest Nightly or Chrome Canary 
> build).
>
> Sometimes the generated code isn't accepted by the current Nightly or 
> Canary. Other then that, all my stuff was running out of the box with no 
> code changes required.
>
> On Chrome Canary I've got a feeling that the JS engine is getting a bit 
> fragile in the past few months for asm.js, at least my 8-bit emulator demo 
> is pretty good at triggering bugs in Canary recently ;) I'm not sure if 
> this is related to the current work going on in WebAssembly (I've had cases 
> where WebAssembly was running stable, but the asm.js version triggered 
> aw-snap pages). I'm just hoping these problem don't make it into the live 
> version...
>
> Here's the current ticket: 
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=633497
>
> And here's a recent one: 
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=611976
>
> Cheers,
> -Floh.
>
> Am Montag, 15. August 2016 23:26:28 UTC+2 schrieb Robert Goulet:
>>
>> What's the status as of today?
>>
>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:19:31 PM UTC-5, awt wrote:
>>>
>>> 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]> 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.

Reply via email to