| ▲ | bvisness 5 hours ago | |
In SpiderMonkey, asm.js code has been compiled by exactly the same pipeline as wasm since at least 2019. In fact, the way we compile it is literally to construct a pseudo-wasm module and run it through our wasm compiler (with a few flags to tweak the behavior to fit the asm.js semantics). In other words, if you're running asm.js in Firefox, you're literally just running wasm anyway, so how could it possibly be faster? Furthermore, if you use wasm, you'll have fewer bounds checks (because of better memory allocation strategies[1]), access to SIMD, bulk memory operations, and a host of other niceties that have been added to wasm over the years. If your asm.js code is outperforming someone else's wasm code, that probably just means their wasm code is worse. [1]: https://spidermonkey.dev/blog/2025/01/15/is-memory64-actuall... | ||
| ▲ | theultdev 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
yeah turns out it was chrome that was slow, not firefox. wasm hashing in chrome is half the speed of firefox for me. | ||