That is surprising, yes. Are they implementing the exact same algorithm?
Are there full instructions to build both projects? Or builds online? Might be something in the emcc command for example (like building without opts). Running a JS profiler might show something interesting. On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:38 PM, John Doughnut <aviadla...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was comparing standard JS implementation (https://github.com/dchest/ > tweetnacl-js) and emscripten-built crypto library. > > I was surprised to find that the standard JS implementation was markedly > faster than asm.js-assisted implementation. > > Can someone point to the root cause of this gap / am I missing something? > > Results: > Chrome 52: > > => 108 > => 990 > > FF 48: > => 472 > => 1939 > > -- > 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 emscripten-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 emscripten-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
