El Dilluns, 8 d'abril de 2013, a les 06:53:10, Thomas Freitag va escriure: > Am 08.04.2013 00:42, schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > > El Diumenge, 7 d'abril de 2013, a les 22:07:46, Thomas Freitag va escriure: > >> Am 07.04.2013 21:12, schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > >>> El Diumenge, 7 d'abril de 2013, a les 16:31:52, Adam Reichold va escriure: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> Am 07.04.2013 16:13, schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > >>>>> El Dissabte, 6 d'abril de 2013, a les 17:43:54, Adam Reichold va > > > > escriure: > >>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Am 06.04.2013 17:14, schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > >>>>>>> El Divendres, 5 d'abril de 2013, a les 21:43:28, Adam Reichold va > >>>>> > >>>>> escriure: > >>>>>>>> Hello again, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I was a bit in a rush at the first try. Sorry for that, I tidied it > >>>>>>>> up > >>>>>>>> slightly. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Maybe we should rename from UTILS_USE_THREAD to UTILS_USE_PTHREAD ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Or add a comment somewhere that we only support pthreads for now > >>>>>>> somewhere? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would be fine with both. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Actually, since this is mostly meant for testing, I would be fine > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> not making it accessible via autotools or CMake at all, i.e. just add > >>>>>> the definition to 'config.h' manually when and if we need it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Makes sense to me, code-wise what's the difference between this and > >>>>> the > >>>>> code Thomas posted in the threading bug? Do you think this is > >>>>> simpler/easier to understand? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, the difference is that I left out the Windows-specific part and > >>>> tried to keep it as simple as possible. For example, I think > >>>> synchronizing on the job queue is simpler than synchronizing on the > >>>> thread state. But of course, my implementation is not very efficient in > >>>> terms of performance, just sufficient for testing. > >>> > >>> Thomas would you be OK if we merge this patchset or you'd prefer yours > >>> (more complex?) to be in? > >> > >> Oh, I never thought to get a question like this. To answer it, I need to > >> to go a little bit more far afield: When I started to implement it, > >> first of all I need a test case. Therefore I made that hack to pdftoppm > >> to use multiple threads under Windows (still my favorite programming > >> platform, I'm too old to change my habits), the pthread version I made > >> much later to run it over the PDF suite and so that You can test it, > >> too. But it was never made to publish it. > >> I think that a multi > >> threading version of pdftoppm is not really necessary for the community. > > > > If we replace community by final user, agreed. > > > >> BUT: because we now support multi threading, we need a test case in > >> general. I haven't review Adam's patch in detail, but if You think it is > >> sufficient as test case (and I don't think, that anyone need a Windows > >> test case), I can live with it. If You otherwise mean that we need a > >> more general support also on Windows, I'll spend one or two weekends to > >> revise my solution. > > > > Honestly *I* don't need Windows support, but that's not *my* project but a > > community one and you seem to need it so we need it. > > > > What I didn't originally like about your patch is that it was a bit too > > much intrusive for my taste, and to be honest Adam's a bit too. > > The advantage of a "pdftoppm" test case is that we can use it in the > regression test without any manipulation and can compare the multi > threading results with the "normal" results. And with the actual state > we still have different results > 1. with damaged PDF where the "normal" pdftoppm produces output for > pages which can not be rendered by copying the last producable page. > 2. with the type 3 fonts where the caching produces "random" result. > 3. with non embedded fonts where the decision which external font should > be used is sometimes different. > But to solve this even I don't need a windows solution. I did need it > only in the past to set breakpoints to have an easier look at variables, > memory and call stack. > > > So that got me thinking into the fact that we don't really need much of > > the > > pdftoppm code, we just need to create a SplashOutputDev and feed it into a > > few threads. > > > > So what do you think of "separate" non pdftoppm code in the test/ folder? > > > > This way we can even have a thread_pthread_test.cpp and a > > thread_windows_test.cpp, etc. without "polluting" the regular pdftoppm > > code. > What do You think about Adam's qt testcase? It has the advantage of not > only test the rendering, even if it need some enhancements, because You > still cannot modify the same annotation from different threads at the > same time.
I do like it, and being Qt has the benefit of being multiplatform already, but it has the problem of not being pdftoppm and thus not a drop-in replacement. Oh the decisions one has to take :D Ok, so what does this like? Take Adam's "qt test" and add it to qt/tests to have a "multiplatform stressing tool" Take Adam's "non introsuive pthread additions to pdftoppm" to have a "drop in replacement for the test suite" This way we get both sides happy? Yes? Albert > > Cheers, > Thomas > > > Thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Albert > >> > >> So I band the ball back to You. > >> Cheers, > >> Thomas > >> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Albert > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, Adam. > >>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> Albert > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best regards, Adam. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Besides that it looks ok-ish in a quick look. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyone has a comment? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Albert > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best regards, Adam. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am 05.04.2013 19:27, schrieb Adam Reichold: > >>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To make it easier for us to test changes w.r.t. to threading, I > >>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>> propose to commit a simple implementation of threading in > >>>>>>>>> 'pdftoppm' > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> master. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The attached patch contains a very simple implementation that is > >>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>> focused on maximal performance but should suffice to stress the > >>>>>>>>> locking > >>>>>>>>> inside Poppler's core. I opted to implement only the POSIX > >>>>>>>>> approach > >>>>>>>>> since I suppose POSIX systems are where most of us test and the > >>>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> hopefully simple and short enough not become a maintenance burden. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best regards, Adam. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> poppler mailing list > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> poppler mailing list > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> poppler mailing list > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> poppler mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> poppler mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> poppler mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > >>> > >>> . > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> poppler mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > > > > _______________________________________________ > > poppler mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler > > > > . > > _______________________________________________ > poppler mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
