It will take some time, I'm afraid, as the change from 0xb (current version) to 0xc (next one) is quite large (wasm changes from an ast to a stack machine, adds globals, adds offsets in memory and table segments, and many others). I'd guess a few weeks.
However, if you use Firefox nightly / Chrome canary + emscripten incoming, you should be able to emit 0xb code and run it right now. Except for bugs of course ;) But overall we are trying to switch versions like 0xb => 0xc in both the toolchain and browsers all at the same time, so aside for a few days they should be in sync. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Bailey Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
