Yes, but the use of gcc vector extensions should also pull SIMD.js in, yet the code size is smaller, than when using SSE or SSE2 intrinsics.
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:47:09 PM UTC+1, Alon Zakai wrote: > > Enabling SIMD support brings in the SIMD.js polyfill code, which is not > small, so that would increase code size. > > You can use tools/find_bigfuncs.py to print out function sizes in order, > this can help see what causes size changes between builds. > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:47 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I'm asking, because I have some code, that supports the gcc vector >> extensions, SSE1, SSE2, ... Whatever is available. But if I enable SSE1 or >> SSE2, the generated .js size becomes substantially larger. Because the gcc >> vector extensions are available even if there is no SSE support at all, I >> thought maybe somehow SIMD gets emulated. I have no explanation for the >> smaller .js file size. It should be bigger, since the gcc vector extension >> feature set is limited compared to SSE1 and SSE2 and the missing features >> need to be emulated by me in C++. >> >> -- >> 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.
