[cairo] path storage optimizations ( was: how to propose a change? )

[Carl Worth]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:12:56 -0500, ionous wrote:
> I have a version of the optimizations I described up and running now -

Hello again!

First off, thank you very much for going back to non-HTML mail. That's
really appreciated, (it's quite hard for me to not just delete HTML
mail unread).

> I've had some problems getting the very latest source ( pixman in 
> particular, but also some minor stuff with the tests ) compiling under 
> windows ( both vc and cygwin/gcc ) -- I will detail and ask for help in 
> a separate mail.

Thanks, please do.

> For the moment, tho, I've attached the source rather than git patch,
> in case anyone wants to take a look.

The patch would actually allow me to take a look, (read it in my email
program, read only the actual changed code, reply to actual quotes of
the code, and if desired, apply the patch for testing). By contrast,
complete source code files aren't of much use for any of those
purposes, (particularly zipped).

And all of that holds even if the code is preliminary and not intended
for being applied to cairo's tree---a patch is still greatly preferred.

> All in all looks pretty good -- checking out some stress tests with more 
> heavy uses of primitives would be interesting.

Yes, in general I'm always in favor of improving things. Keith wrote
the original chunky-path storage, and Behdad rewrote it later to
reduce memory consumption. So another rewrite now to improve it more
sounds great. Maybe Behdad will have some comment, (or maybe he too
will wait to see a patch).

> Open Questions:
> * Is the code managing reverse traversal of paths necessary. I didn’t 
> (re)implement it in the attached because no one appears to be using it.

If there are no callers then please remove it. As that's a logically
separate step, please do that as a separate patch/commit before your
subsequent work.

> Regarding the attached code -- it includes a whole bunch of logging code 
> that while useful does make the code less maintainable -- I will 
> probably rip it out before making a real patch.

And that sounds like something that would work well has a third
commit, (so that you could submit the complete patch series with three
commits, but perhaps only the first two would be intended for/applied
to cairo itself).

> * What size should cairo_path_fixed_t be set to? comments indicate 512 
> bytes is desirable but I don't think gcc nor visualc achieve that. gcc 
> -- assuming my macro expansions are right -- comes in at a very odd 499 
> bytes.

I have no suggestion here. Behdad?

-Carl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cairographics.org/archives/cairo/attachments/20070830/92a75f5d/attachment.pgp