On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:22:15 +0300 Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > this thread started from > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2013-February/002619.html > and continued in > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2013-March/002677.html > > I'd like to hear what the thoughts of it are now, more questions below. > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:37:06 +0100 > sandmann at cs.au.dk (Søren Sandmann) wrote: > > > I pushed the first patch to master. For this one, did you try comparing > > Chris' patch to your on ARMv6? Also, did we ever find out whether it was > > a bug in Firefox. I'm still somewhat skeptical that it's intended for a > > PAD image to be accessed so far out of bounds. > > What is the "Chris' patch", has it been merged? > > Do you still think there is a bug in Firefox, and the (trimmed) Cairo > traces are therefore invalid for PAD type repeats? ... > In his original email, Ben showed a speedup of "3.86x" in > t-firefox-chalkboard trimmed Cairo trace on ARMv6. > > However, it didn't come clear to me, whether this "pad" kind of > optimization would ever be accepted upstream, or what exactly an > acceptable approach would be. Could you shed some light on that? > > Apparently it should go on the "new infrastructure" way instead? > > I'm trying to gather some understanding on how much work it would be to > get the "3.86x" improvement upstream, and whether I as a Pixman-novice > would be able to pull it off in reasonable time. No idea, anyone? Also, what about the "[PATCH v5 0/4] Two ARMv6 optimizations" patch series I posted on April 9th? Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
