Hi Glenn, We took a look at the complex scripts support, and a big chunk of the code-base is in the fonts, and the layout tests don't cover fonts, rendering etc. What are you finding for end-to-end performance? We created a large latin only document and found about 50% increase in time.
Mehdi On 19 July 2011 14:36, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit > tests, I get the following: > TRUNK CMPLX DIFF% > junit-basic 4.87s 4.92s 1.01% > junit-layout-standard 36.34s 36.72s 1.04% > In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the > Complex Script branch. > So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based on > this data. > I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling by > default. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Glenn, >> >> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the >> performances. >> Can you give an approximative impact? >> >> >> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit : >> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features >> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or both) >> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is >> > whether to enable or disable by default? >> > >> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't want >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a minor >> > performance penalty. >> > >> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or want >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do >> > something special to enable this support. >> > >> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either way. >> > >> > G. >> > >> >> -- >> Pascal > >
