Was this a recent regression? I made some changes in that area recently to support transparent webviews. I tried not to change anything in the case where transparency is not needed, but I imagine this could have been me.
Here is the change: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/renderer_host/render_widget_host_unittest.cc?revision=14378&view=markup - a On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Adam Langley <a...@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Marc-Andre Decoste <m...@chromium.org> wrote: >> An alternative could be to send a bitmap the size of the union rect, but >> only paint the individual rects in it, and extract them individually on the >> other side of the IPC... But I wonder if it would be worth the added >> complexity and risk... Unless I missed something (which is most probably the >> case :-)... > > Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here. But is the problem that the area of > the > union rectangle is significantly greater than the areas of the actually > damaged > regions, thus we're painting too much? > > If that's the case, we could well change the PaintRect and ScrollRect messages > to carry a vector of rects and have them arranged in sequence in the > TransportDIB. Since I'm currently to blame for much of the IPC painting code, > I > can do this if it'll be of benefit. > > > AGL > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
