" Anyway, my feedback is that wasm+asynicify version is most performant and stable version, that should be used most time."
That's an interesting take. Could it be because it works on a separate worker, and so isn't polled by the JS event loop? And can you estimate the performance change with and without asyncify? On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 04:58, Александр Гурьянов <[email protected]> wrote: > > i.e. is asm.js really faster than wasm2js on that platforms where you > *need* to run JS? > If browser didn't support asm.js then plain js have same performance > level. But for sure, if browser support asm.js, then asm.js have much > much better performance. > Regarding to you question, I understand your point, but as js-dos > maintainer I should provide must optimized version for each > environment (e.g. wasm, asm.js). > > Form real use case, I only used asm.js for fallbacking ios safari, > because sometimes it can't start wasm version with "out of execution > memory" error (not js-dos case). > > Anyway, my feedback is that wasm+asynicify version is most performant > and stable version, that should be used most time. > I don't know why but it even more faster then wasm no async version. > > пт, 15 нояб. 2019 г. в 08:44, 'Sam Clegg' via emscripten-discuss > <[email protected]>: > > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:22 PM Александр Гурьянов <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I totaly agree with this approach. I used js just to support Internet > > > Explorer, so it's not very important. I will provide asm.js for nosync > > > and emterp version, and play js for asyncify even if it's slower. > > > > > > > Are there versions of IE that have asm.js acceleration but no wasm > > support? i.e. is asm.js really faster than wasm2js on that platforms > > where you *need* to run JS? > > > > > > > вс, 3 нояб. 2019 г. в 00:10, Alon Zakai <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > I don't have plans to work on asm.js for the upstream backend. (If > someone else is, though, I'm not opposed to patches.) > > > > > > > > The key issues are that almost all browsers have wasm anyhow so the > JS build matters less and less, and that an increasing number of wasm > features can't work in asm.js anyhow. So asm.js would only help a small and > decreasing number of old browsers, and in a decreasing subset of wasm. > > > > > > > > Where do you currently use the JS version of js-dos? > > > > > > > > You can still use fastcomp, but we've removed Asyncify there as > Emterpreter has worked there for a long time, and upstream Asyncify is now > stable as well. But an older fastcomp version (1.38.40 or older) still has > it. > > > > > > > > - Alon > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 8:52 AM Александр Гурьянов < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi, from docs: > > > >> ``` > > > >> WASM=0 behaves differently in the two backends. In fastcomp we emit > > > >> asm.js, while in upstream we emit JS (since not all wasm constructs > > > >> can be expressed in asm.js). Also, the JS support implements the > same > > > >> external WebAssembly.* API, so in particular startup will be async > > > >> just like wasm by default, and you can control that with > > > >> WASM_ASYNC_COMPILATION (even though WASM=0). > > > >> ``` > > > >> Do you have plan to add support for ASM.JS in non-fastcomp backend? > I > > > >> received feedback that js version of js-dos is much slower then > asm.js > > > >> version of it. > > > >> > > > >> I have 3 version of js-dos now: > > > >> * asyncify > > > >> * emterp > > > >> * nosync > > > >> > > > >> So for nosync & emterp version I can compile ASM.JS with fastcomp. > Can > > > >> I also compile asyncify version with fastcomp to asm.js? > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> 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]. > > > >> To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAKOm%3DVGGbZvypXnN2HUDSXi%2Bi2j_fhK2SSGuG2xpE1u%2Bud_c8g%40mail.gmail.com > . > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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]. > > > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAEX4NpTkJX4jCF%2Bi_0j6Bc-vg3T55XvZcaM5oKFiUxK3dcX3HQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > > > > > > -- > > > 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]. > > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAKOm%3DVGhSreNwV0BecTQcUGfwUQ6i-t%3D-JWJPDpsN-C9KtvksQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > > > > -- > > 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]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAL_va28q3prEPKUkUJqd6ep3Rawu0fr0Tx3y-yDU1n_W1sqHMw%40mail.gmail.com > . > > -- > 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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CAKOm%3DVFqA871W4ppbscDb%3DT4fHDzjSc9UsYYwXRcWokcc%3D9-hw%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/emscripten-discuss/CA%2B_KjGa_wcez0AceiSw1oVgaaHQ_6QdRy%3DdybpZ8UU3WRC-PXw%40mail.gmail.com.
