No, sorry, no idea. I try to avoid the C++ RTTI system ;) I was thinking about tweaking the outlining-limit (see: http://mozakai.blogspot.de/2013/08/outlining-workaround-for-jits-and-big.html), if the generated code contains very large functions, JS engines may not optimize them. I was bitten by this problem a long time ago with sqlite. If this would be a problem you would get warnings about large functions in the linker step.
But dynamic_cast, I have no idea what the problem could be... even if it is used heavily I couldn't imagine what would be so expensive about it. Is the performance in Firefox roughly the same as a native optimized executable, or is this also a lot slower? An isolated test case might be helpful, it could actually be a more serious code generation issue and/or a pathological case for Google's JS engine (in this case it might be useful to file a ticket in the Chromium issue tracker). Cheers, -Floh. Am Dienstag, 11. August 2015 16:05:39 UTC+2 schrieb Laurent Pugin: > > >> I would advice to compile your code with optimization on and -g2 >> (preserves function names), and then use Chrome's JS profiler (part of >> Chrome Developer Tools panel). This should give you an idea what functions >> are especially slow and perhaps provide a hint which C/C++ code is the >> problem. >> > > It seems that dynamic_cast takes quite some of the time (nearly 50%?). Any > thoughts? > > -- 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.
