Re: View shrink factor
On 13 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote: > When Daniel and I did our profiling just after the gimpcon we found > that the bottleneck were not really the paint functions but small > things like repeatedly calling methods like drawable_bpp which were > just one line and similar cases. We commited to do a lot of profiling > but I don't think anybody did ;) Nah, I replaced most of the funtions which return consts anyway directly by accesses to the structs. However I haven't done much more in this area as I'm working heavily in the gimp-help... -- Servus, Daniel
Re: View shrink factor
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 04:01:00PM +, Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I modified the original code to handle non-integer scale factors. It > lives in image_render.c When Daniel and I did our profiling just after the gimpcon we found that the bottleneck were not really the paint functions but small things like repeatedly calling methods like drawable_bpp which were just one line and similar cases. We commited to do a lot of profiling but I don't think anybody did ;) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: View shrink factor
On Saturday, 10 Feb 2001, David Monniaux wrote: > Exactly which functions handle the low-level actual enlargement or > shrinking of display? I'd like to write MMX versions for them. I modified the original code to handle non-integer scale factors. It lives in image_render.c I'm not sure how much use an MMX version will be, given the large variety of platforms GIMP runs on. Keeping two version of the code (ASM + C) in sync is also a bit of a nightmare. (Just my 0.02 Euro's worth) Austin
