Hello,
First, sorry for delay, I am studying for my final exams that will held
beginning of June.
I am playing with graph/grx11 at the same time.
Those I what I did so far:
-Research for X11
-Compiled all the demos and runned them
-Studied build process of graph apps
I wanted to compile grx11.c
ple (working for iOS softwares) promoting Swift as
> Swift is in, and Objective-C is out.
>
> Also, there would be alternative approach, like Qt, to keep from playing
> with Apple-specific technologies.
>
> Do you have any preference?
>
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
>
> On 20
schedule dated on April 2nd was written for older goal
> (an improvement of ftbench and related).
>
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
>
> On 2024/05/02 4:31, Ahmet Göksu wrote:
> > Hello!
> > Its Ahmet Goksu, last years GSoC contributor on ftbench.
> > This year,
Hello!
Its Ahmet Goksu, last years GSoC contributor on ftbench.
This year, I will be contributing development graphics backend natively on
macOS without X11.
Its so exciting to be here again!
here are my infos to connect:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ahmetgoksu/
https://github.com/goeksu
s less than 1000
> lines on Windows and X11.
>
> Please submit a proposal if you are interested
>
> Alexei
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 3:28 AM Ahmet Göksu wrote:
> >
> > Hello Alexei,
> > Yes, I am using mac with m2 processor. I would happy to contribute.
> >
Hello Again,
Last year, I was contributor of the project: Integrating ftbench into
FreeType's build structure. I integrated the related benchmarking code into
build system and produced results page successfully. However, the produced
results had no meaning. This year, I want to work on this
Hello,
I wanted to ping one more time about my previous mail.
I would be so happy if I have a chance to get a recommendation letter about the
time we spend together and the job I did.
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On Nov 15, 2023 at 16:02 +0300, ahmetsgo...@icloud.com , wrote:
>
> additionally, a
hey, i have done the changes you want forcing to push the repo.
i am used vscode whitespace settings, is there any other mistakes to fix?
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On Sep 25, 2023 at 7:33 PM +0300, Werner LEMBERG , wrote:
>
> > I hope my effort contribute to you. I wish to see you again.
>
> :-) You
Thanks a lot :)
I hope my effort contribute to you. I wish to see you again.
Here is my last version of readme, i will push submit my final submission
regarding your feedback. (also waiting for *-demos code review, i will push
them too)
>
>
> ftbench
> ftbench is a program designed to
Hi,
I have created a new branch.
Here you can see it:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/freetype/freetype/-/tree/gsoc-2023-ahmet-final
-Made documentation and comment line (will continue).
-trailing whitespaces cleared
-more verbose commit messages
-formatted the code.
In this version of the code,
might switch from qt5 to qt6 - that it
> doesn't quite work yet. There are always going to be
> incomplete/work-in-progress areas, so the general direction would be write
> down things clearly so you or someone else can revisit later and continue
> with as much help and inform
it.
>
>
> On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 17:21:49 BST, Ahmet Göksu
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
> -I have changed the * and the sentence
> -changed the links to relative
> > I already changed the working way of the timing. I only start the
> > benchmark at begi
Hello,
-I have changed the * and the sentence
-changed the links to relative
> I already changed the working way of the timing. I only start the
> benchmark at beginning and stop at the end.
i mean, it times chunks, not single iteration.timer starts at the beginning of
the chunk and stop at the
Hi,
It is a late message, sorry for this.
> BTW, have you checked whether replacing `CLOCK_REALTIME` with
> `CLOCK_MONOTONIC` gives better results?
>
> What platform do you actually develop on? What #if clause in
> function `get_time` of `ftbench.c` is run on your computer?
I tried to change the
> I still think that for such cases the number of iterations of the affected
> tests should be increased to get more precise values.
the times are for single iteration. (chunk median/chunk size)
> Please separate this line slightly from the rest of the table
> and print the *cumulated timing* (in
hi,
here is the results with chris’ suggestion. (thanks chris)
i will check hyperfine.
still a bit noise on only load and load_advances.
are results acceptable?
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On 28 Aug 2023 21:19 +0300, Werner LEMBERG , wrote:
>
> code
Freetype Benchmark Results
Warning: Baseline and
Hİ,
I have edited the code aligning with the Hin-Tak’s suggestion. Here is the two
results pages, also pushed on gitlab.
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On 18 Aug 2023 14:02 +0300, Werner LEMBERG , wrote:
> > > What happens if you use, say, `-c 10', just running the
> > > `Get_Char_Index` test? Are the
offers a clearer
representation. I will adapt the code aligning with your suggestion.
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On 18 Aug 2023 1:04 PM +0300, Hin-Tak Leung ,
wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 00:21:41 BST, Ahmet Göksu wrote:
> >
> > about outliers, i splitted eve
> What happens if you use, say, `-c 10', just running the
> `Get_Char_Index` test? Are the percental timing differences then
> still that large?
Actually Get_Char_Index, on the three pages I have sent in the prev. mail, is
higher than 6% only 4 times out of 15 total. (which is seem on other
Hi,
I have added the total table that you suggested.
I think Get_Char_Index is not the problem, the results varies all the time.
Here are the three results that i had in the same minute (one has different
flags).
Should I proceed to detect outliers?
Since we do not get the same error rate
Hi!
I changed code to warmup with number of iterations.
> What exactly means 'Baseline (ms)'? Is the shown number the time
> for one loop? For all loops together? Please clarify and mention
> this on the HTML page.
Clarified that the times are milliseconds for the cumulative time for all
Hi,
I have updated the bench code.
It is warming up as the given number of seconds with -w flag before every
benchmark test.
There are still differences like 100%..
Also, 1 sec warmup means (test count)*(font count) 70 secs for the results.
I am thinking of what else can be done and waiting for
Hi,
I have done the changes you want.
> 36.5% run difference is bd. AFAICS, you haven't yet worked on
> omitting 'warmup' iterations, right?
I am planning to increase the iteration count by 10% and ignore the results for
them. Trying to figure out the benchmarking program but actually
Thank you Hin-Tak.
I have checked the makefile of demos and used libs and the includes as there.
(it was overriding the ccraw to cc)
about percentages, i runned the bench with -c 200 to have instant results for
development process. here in the benchmark file attached, it made more
acceptable
the actual compiler command it is running.
> That you should be able to cut and paste and run directly and it should
> execute without error.
>
>
> Anyway, this is just a quick tutorial... there is no substitute for actually
> reading the manual :-). They are quite well writt
Hi,
• i modified benchmark program not to report 'time per op’ but rather
'cumulative time per N iterations'
• changed the table design
• sentence 'smaller values are better’ is present
• embed a small CSS fragment at the top of the page
• linked to the original baseline and benchmark `.txt`
•
Sorry, my bad to forget to add CC.
I thought you mean running make outside of the src/tools/ftbench file (as how
older version works) by non-sourcedir builds. if you mean running from a
seperate build directory, it is working now.
for benchmark.html (also in the attachments):
> quote_type
>
Hi, I think this benchmark page in attachment is what you wanted to.
Made baseline in my branch, fetched and merged with craigs branch, made
benchmark.
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On 20 Jun 2023 07:18 +0300, Werner LEMBERG , wrote:
>
> > No, only parameter that given to ftbench.o is -c 50 for now. but
No, only parameter that given to ftbench.o is -c 50 for now. but i will do by
“-r 1” parameter.
so i need to pass additional parameters from command line first. then, print it
to benchmark page as well as commit id and date.
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On 19 Jun 2023 11:50 PM +0300, Werner LEMBERG ,
hi craig,
your repo is updated 2 weeks ago. we can use ftbench to compare differences.
yet, benchmark is in attachments.
Best,
Goksu
goksu.in
On 19 Jun 2023 15:17 +0300, Werner LEMBERG , wrote:
>
> Hello Craig (and Ahmet),
>
>
> sorry for the very late reply, but right now there is soon the end
Hi,
I want to inform about last update about ftbench. Make is integrated with
baseline, benchmark and clean-benchmark targets. developed a python script that
creates a html file for benchmark too.
make baseline: compiles the ftbench.c file and creates a baseline in the
src/tools/ftbench/ dir.
Hi,
I am integrating ftbench into build system.
-ftbench is moved to src/tools/ftbench and I am working inside for now.
-a makefile is created that has a baseline, benchmark and clean targets
(seperate from main build system while developing process)
-five common fonts' (Arial, Roboto, Tahoma,
32 matches
Mail list logo
