From b9836d4d9c951a61b5955b014189024b188a415e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sean Stangl Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:23:15 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Correctly capitalize Firefox in the README --- README.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index f61b4277a4..b344ac5919 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Lightbeam is an optimising one-pass streaming compiler for WebAssembly, intended ## Quality of output -Already - with a very small number of relatively simple optimisation rules - Lightbeam produces surprisingly high-quality output considering how restricted it is. It even produces better code than Cranelift, FireFox or both for some workloads. Here's a very simple example, this recursive fibonacci function in Rust: +Already - with a very small number of relatively simple optimisation rules - Lightbeam produces surprisingly high-quality output considering how restricted it is. It even produces better code than Cranelift, Firefox or both for some workloads. Here's a very simple example, this recursive fibonacci function in Rust: ```rust fn fib(n: i32) -> i32 { @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ When compiled with optimisations enabled, rustc will produce the following WebAs (get_local $l1))) ``` -FireFox's optimising compiler produces the following assembly (labels cleaned up somewhat): +Firefox's optimising compiler produces the following assembly (labels cleaned up somewhat): ```asm fib: @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ fib: ret ``` -Whereas Lightbeam produces smaller code with far fewer memory accesses than both (and fewer blocks than FireFox's output): +Whereas Lightbeam produces smaller code with far fewer memory accesses than both (and fewer blocks than Firefox's output): ```asm fib: @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ fib: ret ``` -Now obviously I'm not advocating for replacing FireFox's optimising compiler with Lightbeam since the latter can only really produce better code when receiving optimised WebAssembly (and so debug-mode or hand-written WebAssembly may produce much worse output). However, this shows that even with the restrictions of a streaming compiler it's absolutely possible to produce high-quality assembly output. For the assembly above, the Lightbeam output runs within 15% of native speed. This is paramount for one of Lightbeam's intended usecases for real-time systems that want good runtime performance but cannot tolerate compiler bombs. +Now obviously I'm not advocating for replacing Firefox's optimising compiler with Lightbeam since the latter can only really produce better code when receiving optimised WebAssembly (and so debug-mode or hand-written WebAssembly may produce much worse output). However, this shows that even with the restrictions of a streaming compiler it's absolutely possible to produce high-quality assembly output. For the assembly above, the Lightbeam output runs within 15% of native speed. This is paramount for one of Lightbeam's intended usecases for real-time systems that want good runtime performance but cannot tolerate compiler bombs. ## Specification compliance