From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Juan =?utf-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_Garc=C3=ADa-Ripoll?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GDI+ take 3 Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 19:51:01 +0200 Message-ID: <86h7xgznqy.fsf@csic.es> References: <86h7xzc5ai.fsf@csic.es> <83v9m0g4yw.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgh4g3af.fsf@gnu.org> <83k12gfzxc.fsf@gnu.org> <83eesofyac.fsf@gnu.org> <83d088fwgt.fsf@gnu.org> <835ze0fqk2.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgh3eogs.fsf@gnu.org> <838sitazal.fsf@gnu.org> <86imhxufx9.fsf@csic.es> <83y2qsap7r.fsf@gnu.org> <83mu78kbwm.fsf@gnu.org> 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="71394"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (windows-nt) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:M7lO5Z8dUOkQ7uru8nXbN0YD7bU= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 18 19:51:50 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 1jPrd7-000ISk-Jp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 19:51:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60404 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPrd6-0005kB-Mf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:51:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35088) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPrcV-0005J8-42 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:51:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPrcT-000512-R5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:51:11 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([159.69.161.202]:59120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPrcT-0004zl-LQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:51:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jPrcS-000Hge-B3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 19:51:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 159.69.161.202 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:247236 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Juanma Barranquero >> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:56:41 +0200 >> Cc: Juan José García-Ripoll , >> Emacs developers >> >> That happening / not happening suggest we're accessing some uninitialized >> memory or some such, I suspect. > > That'd be my guess, yes. Don't think so. If there was corruption, you would see a crash, as it already happened with TIFF; from what I gather, it simply stops animating but Emacs keeps working. Couldn't it be just a problem of latency? Emacs is doing something rather ugly with animated images: it reloads them every time a new frame is requested. This means decoding the entire image; extracting the frame; displaying it; dropping the image. Indeed, the continuous reloading of images and associated slowdown is one of the reasons I stopped using equation previews in LaTeX. My laptop is old, but I have an SSD and never see any problem. When Emacs runs on a hard disk or the computer is more busy, maybe the timer cannot catch up with the speed of the animation past some frames and the image is not updated. Or maybe the timer gets triggered while decoding. Probably one does not need to "step" through all the code, but just make sure w32_load_image gets called, logging those calls and the time they happen. If they are equally spaced and all succeed, maybe you are right, but I would guess there is a bottleneck somewhere. Cheers -- Juan José García Ripoll http://juanjose.garciaripoll.com http://quinfog.hbar.es