From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GDI+ take 3 Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:42:49 +0300 Message-ID: <83wo637kbq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83d088fwgt.fsf@gnu.org> <835ze0fqk2.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgh3eogs.fsf@gnu.org> <838sitazal.fsf@gnu.org> <86imhxufx9.fsf@csic.es> <83y2qsap7r.fsf@gnu.org> <20200418201943.GA57763@breton.holly.idiocy.org> <868sirzsi3.fsf@csic.es> <867dybxmqh.fsf@csic.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="88184"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juan =?utf-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_Garc=C3=ADa-Ripoll?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 25 15:43:34 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jSL5i-000MrF-7l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:43:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37342 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSL5h-0000L5-7w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:43:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60806) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSL5B-0008De-6b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:43:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSL5A-0007SR-UX; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:43:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2228 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jSL59-0003cD-Iw; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:43:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <867dybxmqh.fsf@csic.es> (juanjose.garciaripoll@gmail.com) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:247780 Archived-At: > From: Juan José García-Ripoll > > Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:08:06 +0200 > > Folloup on the previous studies. Note that I am using emacs on a 64-bit > machine, not 32 bit. So I am unable to comment on Juanma's statistics or > Eli's more recent build. However, I hooked into IMAGE-ANIMATE-TIMEOUT > and it confirms what I suspected: the load times surpass the scheduled > time of the timer. > > The image that was supplied by Alan has a nominal delay time of 0.03 > seconds between frames. Emacs 26.3 takes about 0.14 seconds on average > to load each frame of the gif file, using giflib. Emacs 28 as I built it > from git source right now, takes 0.3 seconds with giflib and a time that > grows from 0.01 up to 0.16 seconds (probably because frames have to be > read sequentially, there is no index). I see similar timings here. I wonder why the times go up with GDI+, but not with giflib. Maybe the answer hides in what you say by "there's no index" -- what do you mean by that? P.S. Your test code allowed me to find and fix a bug in how images are loaded natively, now fixed in the repository.