Are there benchmarks for WASM parsing speed? On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:39:59 PM UTC-7, Charles Vaughn wrote: > > 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]> 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]. >>> 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.
