RE: [ft-devel] Status of 2.2

[Turner, David]

Hello,

I might add that there are also performance considerations.
For example, on my machine, opening a TrueType font like
Arial jumps from 277 to 70 micro-seconds when the memory
optimizations are enabled.

That's not necessarily such a small gain when you consider
what things like FontConfig, LibXft and Cairo do with
FreeType.


Regards,

- David Turner
- The FreeType Project  (www.freetype.org)


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden 
> la part de
> Matthias Clasen
> Envoyé : mardi 4 octobre 2005 05:34
> À : address@hidden
> Cc : address@hidden
> Objet : Re: [ft-devel] Status of 2.2
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 09:18 +0900, address@hidden wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:24:49 -0400
> > Matthias Clasen <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > - Does FT_OPTIMIZE_MEMORY still break apps ? I know that Pango
> > >   has been patched, but I hear xfs segfaults with the memory
> > >   optimizations. Are there patches beyond the (applied) pango 
> > >   patches to fix breakage due to this ?
> > 
> > Yet I'm unfamiliar with the reason why they want to use
> > FT_OPTIMIZE_MEMORY, if you know, please let me know.
> > If it's something like "maximum optimization is required",
> > is there any benchmark tests comparing FreeType with/without
> > FT_OPTIMIZE_MEMORY?
> 
> You can look at 
> http://www.advogato.org/person/freetype/diary.html?start=15
> for some impressive numbers.
> 
> Matthias
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freetype-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
>