6 ms·

For 99% of us that's just an implementation detail anyway. Although I remember reading that Firefox can compile wasm faster than normal network transfer rates s

For 99% of us that's just an implementation detail anyway. Although I remember reading that Firefox can compile wasm faster than normal network transfer rates so maybe AOT makes more sense there.

IainIreland 3y ago
We do streaming baseline compilation as fast as the network can hand us bytes, but we also kick off a more optimized compilation in a background thread. A lot of optimizations can be baked into the generated wasm, but you still need to spend some time doing eg register allocation.
- kouteiheika 3y ago
  > A lot of optimizations can be baked into the generated wasm, but you still need to spend some time doing eg register allocation. Such a shame WASM is a stack machine. If it wasn't we could have had fast, singlepass compilation with near native performance without any complex optimizing recompilers or multi level JITs. (This is not speculation. I actually wrote a VM which executes code as fast as wasmtime but compiles 160 times faster and guarantees O(n) compilation.)
  - disintegore 3y ago
    Interesting. Would the differences in binary sizes be prohibitive for use on the internet?
    - kouteiheika 3y ago
      > Would the differences in binary sizes be prohibitive for use on the internet? No. They are competitive. For one of my benchmarks I get a WASM blob that is 90KB, and for my VM I get 76KB. (Both are stripped of any debug info.)