I used console.time and console.timeEnd around the wasm.instantiateModule call
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 1:32:51 PM UTC-7, Alon Zakai wrote: > > I don't know about chrome, but in firefox definitely wasm parsing should > be massively faster than asm.js - it goes straight from binary to the JIT, > so JS parsing is completely eliminated. However, if JIT time is large > enough you might notice this less, as parsing and JITing are done together. > > How exactly did you measure this in firefox? You should see some web > console output for compiling asm.js and wasm (which should include parsing > and JIT) that can help. > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Charles Vaughn <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I've built my companies internal Emscripten oriented codebase with >> Binaryen, resulting in an output of ~2MB. Benchmarking time spent to >> compile the WebAssembly module in Chrome canary shows around 1 second. >> While its not exactly the same (parse instead of compile), the script >> streamer thread timing for the equivalent JS (~3.5MB) only takes around >> 300ms. Using different versions of chrome doesn't seem to impact the >> timing, and Firefox shows slightly faster, but not better than just JS >> parse time. >> >> Is this expected to improve? >> >> -- >> 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.
