On 5 Sep 2015 12:32 am, "rsw0x via Digitalmars-d" < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 22:53:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >> >> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 21:08:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 10:04:58 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 09:56:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 06:18:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is translatable to pure assembly, addressing is modulo heap size. Performance is a different issue since it does not provide SIMD yet. >>>> >>>> >>>> SIMD is not even remotely close to explaining the perf difference. >>> >>> >>> What browser? Only FF supports it. Chrome just JIT it IIRC. >> >> >> asm.js typically runs half the speed of natively compiled code. pNaCl run about 20% slower typically. >> >> The gap is way to big for vectorization to be a reasonable explanation. In fact a large body of code just do not vectorize at all. >> >> You seems to be fixated on that vectorization thing, when it is not even remotely close to the problem at hand. > > > All of this could have been avoided by all browser vendors agreeing to implement pNaCl. > Maybe we'll be lucky and Firefox will fade into obscurity with the way they've been handling things lately.
What I don't get is, Firefox and ie support plugins... Why isn't there a pnacl plugin for other browsers? Surely it could be added with the existing plugin interfaces?
