Interesting, I'm surprised asm.js makes that much of a difference. Can you perhaps profile to see why?
- Alon On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Lu Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > This doc shows the performance of pdfium.js and pdf.js: > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s90JhBjpcbc8FoGruLFzKxaQ-cpKT8qmHgBUsCH9PXY/edit?usp=sharing > > The input file is the one used in the PDF.js demo (tracemonkey paper). > And the test pages are > > http://coolwanglu.github.io/PDFium.js/ > http://coolwanglu.github.io/PDFium.js/pdfjs.html > > I didn't use the PDF.js demo to avoid some overhead on UI. Also to be > fair, text layer is disabled. > > In the figure we can see that PDFium.js with asm.js is very fast (except > for page 9, no idea about the reason), the other two without asm.js were > old versions, just for comparison. > > Alon: previously asm.js was disabled in order to allow memory growth, it > actually makes much difference. > > > regards, > - Lu > > > > -- > 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.
