I doubt that it would make any difference in size to use asm.js or not. WebAssembly is a bit smaller (about 10% when measuring the compressed size, which is the only number that matters, asm.js is much less dense, but also compresses much better than WASM).
I got an emscripten "hello world" down to 16 KByte compressed without "hacks", and a minimal WebGL demo to about 33 KByte. These numbers are for plain C code, C++ is a bit trickier. Everything on top of those about 10..50 KByte overhead caused by the C or C++ runtime lib and emscripten JS wrapper depends on how "bloated" your C/C++ code is. Using a lot of dynamic dispatch calls (virtual methods or jump tables) makes it hard for the compiler to remove unused code, using C++ iostream adds a lot of size overhead (about 100 KByte), using alot of complex template code will also add a lot of size, etc etc... I wrote a blog post about the topic a while ago: http://floooh.github.io/2016/08/27/asmjs-diet.html The TL;DR is: emscripten-generated code can be small if you're very careful what code you feed it, you basically need to embrace embedded-style programming, since embedded programming is these days about the only programming style which cares about avoiding code bloat. Cheers, -Floh. Am Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 05:58:31 UTC schrieb caiiiycuk: > > Hi. Beacuse of google-chrome bug, and some other reasons I can't use > asm.js in my scripts. Currently I just replace "use asm"; to ""; For my > case is very important to reduce js size as much as possible. If I revert > all asm.js stuff (type declarations and etc.) to plain js, how do you think > how much size I can reduce? > -- 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.
