[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ? |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:05:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Keith OHara" <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Open_type_font:: and Pango_font::name_to_index() each call
>>> FT_Get_Name_Index(). Inserting print statements to trace those
>>> calls I find that FT_Get_Name_Index is called:
>>> 7 times for each character in a Tempo
>
> The layers of functions that result in repeated calls to the skylining code
> have changed since the original skylines patch. The latest change was
>
> author David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:02:48 +0000 (20:02 +0100)
> Issue 3200: Make ly:make-unpure-pure-container accept a single callback
>
> Like with fixed values, this gets duplicated for the pure value as
> well, but converted into a callback taking two more arguments (which
> are ignored).
That was only creating a less awkward API for stuff that was already
being done at a number of places. This patch should not have made a
performance difference in itself.
It might have encouraged and/or legitimized performance hogs.
> This type of unpure-pure-container is not a container of two functions
> but rather a single callback function, that promises to refrain from
> forcing line-break decisions (to be 'pure') and that ignores the two
> arguments giving the start- and end- of the line it would be on in the
> tentative line-breaks under consideration.
>
> In this case repeated calls will recompute the same value,
The point of this would appear to be that the calculation tracks the
changing placement of other elements depending on line-break decisions:
there would be no point in using an unpure/pure container in the first
place over a straight callback otherwise.
> so I see no reason to keep the function-call pointer in place after
> the first use. So I suggest we treat this case as if it were a simple
> lookup of a property, rather than a 'pure' lookup.
> http://codereview.appspot.com/42190043
That does not make sense. If you want call-once behavior, you can just
use a callback.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, (continued)
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/11
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/11
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/15