Thanks!

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:26:44 AM UTC-4, Karsten Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi Robert, 
>
> The experimental SIMD reference pages are here: 
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/SIMD_types 
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/SIMD
>  
>
> To check for native support, just verify if window.SIMD is defined... 
>
> Hth! 
>
> On 18 May 2016 at 21:40, Robert Goulet <[email protected] 
> <javascript:>> wrote: 
> > Depending on how fast is the SIMD adoption in browsers we might just not 
> > ship a non-SIMD version, having two separate builds is something we want 
> to 
> > avoid ideally. 
> > 
> > I know its coming along very well in Firefox 49, but what about other 
> > browsers? Does anyone have any insights about SIMD.js support in other 
> > browsers? 
> > 
> > And how does one test for SIMD support? Is this documented? 
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 12:58:05 PM UTC-4, jj wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Cool, great to hear! We do currently provide the SIMD polyfill as a 
> >> fallback, so the SIMD capable page should run on non-SIMD browsers as 
> well. 
> >> Although, unfortunately the SIMD portions will run like 100x slower, 
> since 
> >> the polyfill emulation is doing constant FFI operations between JS and 
> >> asm.js sides. Improving the emulation to be faster is something that 
> was 
> >> concluded would require way too difficult machinery to pull off in 
> asm.js. 
> >> This was discussed in https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/issues/4090 
> and 
> >> https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/issues/3783. 
> >> 
> >> For final releases that need to support non-SIMD browsers as well, we 
> >> recommend you build two versions of the page and do a feature test in 
> the 
> >> .html to serve the appropriate build. Sorry to say that we don't have 
> >> anything better to offer here. When discussing wasm simd support a few 
> >> months back with the spec developers, we did raise this use case, so 
> >> hopefully we'll have a better fallback machinery to provide for wasm. 
> >> 
> >> 2016-05-18 19:32 GMT+03:00 Robert Goulet <[email protected]>: 
> >>> 
> >>> Been starting to use SIMD (SSE3) in our project and in Firefox Nightly 
> >>> (49) its now providing a substancial performance improvement, good 
> job! 
> >>> 
> >>> However, not all browsers support it, so what is the plan regarding 
> this? 
> >>> Is Emscripten going to provide some function to test if browser 
> supports 
> >>> SIMD or not, so that we can branch in our code? Or is there a better 
> way to 
> >>> deal with this? 
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks! 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> 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] <javascript:>. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>
>
>
> -- 
> Karsten Schmidt 
> http://postspectacular.com | http://thi.ng | http://toxiclibs.org 
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to