Hello Kristian, Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:02:11 PM, you wrote: KFE> I have just finished a new tutorial on Gnash's development wiki KFE> describing how to carry out profiling in Gnash focussed on the KFE> renderer, so we can hopefully attract some help to improve on KFE> Gnash's renderer.
With no doubt improvement of the renderers is very important but I doubt that the profiling movies mentioned on the Wiki page are suitable for profiling. In fact they are *very* simple and merely measure how fast the rendered shapes are pushed to the VRAM. There are a number of possibilities where the rendering of complex scenes could be optimized (no matter which renderer) but the profiling movies would not be able to measure a difference. For example, the "invalidation bounds" mechanism that improves rendering speed significantly in many situations is nearly useless for the profiling movies on the Wiki. A good profiling movie is not that easy to build and must contain a variety of typical rendering situations like complex and simple graphics, static and moving objects, simple and complex fills and so on. To really compare rendering performance you need to build a movie that steps through different scenes specifically built for different situations. For example, the AGG rendering backend converts every shape on-the-fly to a AGG data structure while rendering. AFAIK these data structures still aren't cached. This does not affect the movies on the Wiki page but I guess shapes with lots of edges could be improved. As an alternative for a expensive, specifically built test movie I suggest to measure the performance of ca. 5 very different, self-running real-world movies. For example Atom Films movies or similar. The AGG rendering backend with no doubt could be improved performance-wise but some improvements are not simple to do. I guess that's the same for the other backends. Udo _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
