I've updated the google doc with more combination of compilation flags.
regards, - Lu On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:47:07 AM UTC-7, Alon Zakai wrote: > > 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] > <javascript:>> 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] <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.
