<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Replaying recording surfaces with OVER has far worse performance than when using the SOURCE operator" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88203#c1">Comment # 1</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Replaying recording surfaces with OVER has far worse performance than when using the SOURCE operator" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88203">bug 88203</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:emanuele.aina@collabora.com" title="Emanuele Aina <emanuele.aina@collabora.com>"> Emanuele Aina</a> <pre>Note that I'm really not knowledgeable enough to understand how the different compositing operators should work with recording surfaces, but I was surprised that replaying a recording surface is actually replaying it on a clear surface and then compositing it, rather than replaying it directly. Citing the documentation: > If you want to replay a surface so that the results in target will be > identical to the results that would have been obtained if the original > operations applied to the recording surface had instead been applied to the > target surface, you can use code like this: [snip] With the extra copy this does not seem the case: if rendering directly would give different results then the documentation is misleading, but if rendering directly would give the same result then the intermediate surface would not be needed. To be honest I'm not sure what should be the meaning of using operators other than SOURCE and OVER to replay a recording surface. If the user actually meant to use an intermediate surface, why bother using a recording surface then?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>