4 ms·
So, compiling via WasmBoxC gives a 14% - 42% performance overhead compared to native compilation. Is there also a significant overhead in terms of binary size?
by pansa2 6y ago
So, compiling via WasmBoxC gives a 14% - 42% performance overhead compared to native compilation.
Is there also a significant overhead in terms of binary size?
- kevingadd 6y agowasm binaries are typically size-competitive with native x86 once you compress them (i.e. foo.so.zip vs foo.wasm.zip), but the jitcode you get out of them is usually much bigger. In my testing the size overhead for stuff like the ICU unicode library was maybe 20-40% on-disk, depending on compiler settings. It's gonna depend on your workload. Note that even if the actual generated jitcode is computationally efficient, it might be larger and as a result waste more space in the instruction cache, which would hinder performance.