After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 77182 - Performance ayalysis for a lot of glyphs
Performance ayalysis for a lot of glyphs
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: gnome-print
Classification: Deprecated
Component: fonts
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: Chema Celorio
Luis Villa
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-04-01 09:03 UTC by Akira TAGOH
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
sample file for gb18030 (12.34 KB, text/plain)
2002-04-01 09:04 UTC, Akira TAGOH
  Details
fix patch is here (13.86 KB, patch)
2002-04-01 09:05 UTC, Akira TAGOH
none Details | Review
Here is a patch for libgnomeprint. (15.92 KB, patch)
2002-06-12 21:43 UTC, Akira TAGOH
none Details | Review
new version, fix indentation (81.21 KB, patch)
2002-06-15 16:32 UTC, Chema Celorio
none Details | Review
fix patch for 0.37 (64.45 KB, patch)
2003-01-20 07:23 UTC, Akira TAGOH
none Details | Review
non-indent patch (15.57 KB, patch)
2003-01-21 03:36 UTC, Akira TAGOH
none Details | Review

Description Akira TAGOH 2002-04-01 09:03:34 UTC
I tried printing for GB18030, but they needed a lot of times for outputing
PS. printing about a little glyphs works fine.
My test machine has PIII 500MHz and 128MB memory. this printing put in
about 3 hours! bug gb18030's TrueType font is also too big. I think this
printing will finish in about 2 or 3 minutes would be better.

BTW I waited this printing. but gnome-print has a bug, and it output (null)
into PS file.
Comment 1 Akira TAGOH 2002-04-01 09:04:15 UTC
Created attachment 7493 [details]
sample file for gb18030
Comment 2 Akira TAGOH 2002-04-01 09:05:24 UTC
Created attachment 7494 [details] [review]
fix patch is here
Comment 3 Akira TAGOH 2002-04-01 09:09:32 UTC
I tried printing again using this patch. it finished printing in about
3 minutes. I think it's reasonable. this patch also contains
outputting (null) bug fix. this problem is my mistake in fact, but
rlineto() in parseTT.c should not return with NULL.
Comment 4 Damon Chaplin 2002-04-19 20:25:16 UTC
That is a major performance improvement.
It would be nice to get the patch in, but I don't know gnome-print
well enough yet to say it is OK.
Comment 5 Akira TAGOH 2002-04-20 07:47:07 UTC
Indeed. applications is freezing since printing process put in 3
minutes. I think this freeze is bad. a dialog like processing should
be displayed at least. otherwise the users will be afraid.
Comment 6 Chema Celorio 2002-06-05 21:45:55 UTC
This patch looks good in general. It needs a little bit of style
fixing (which i can do) and also porint to the 2.0 branch. I'll try
doing it soon.

Akira:
- If you want to port it to the GNOME 2.0 branch it will speed things
up, if not i'll do it when i get to it.

thanks,
Chema
Comment 7 Akira TAGOH 2002-06-06 17:26:20 UTC
Well, I don't try to test it with the same case on GNOME2, but does
gnome-print for GNOME2 also have the performance issue? the handling
freetype codes is different between GNOME1.4 and GNOME2.
So I will be also able to test it on GNOME2. if fixing is needed, I
will do that.
Comment 8 Chema Celorio 2002-06-06 17:30:18 UTC
Yes, the code that you fixed performance is almost the same in GNOME2
the patch almost applied cleanly to gp-tt-utils.c (as oposed to
parsetTT.c). 
Comment 9 Akira TAGOH 2002-06-12 21:43:59 UTC
Created attachment 9184 [details] [review]
Here is a patch for libgnomeprint.
Comment 10 Akira TAGOH 2002-06-12 21:56:45 UTC
I've tested it with G2. as you said, libgnomeprint also had the
printing performance issue. but even if I applied a patch for 1.4, it
needed about 30 minutes for the printing. so I improved a patch for
the printing performance. the printing was finished about 1.5 minutes.
Perhaps this fix may also help gnome-print for 1.4.
I will check it with 1.4.
Comment 11 Havoc Pennington 2002-06-14 13:58:01 UTC
Luis this one renders gedit unusable in CJK locales, perhaps it 
should be higher severity/priority.
Comment 12 Chema Celorio 2002-06-14 15:09:49 UTC
Havoc: yes, upping to critical

I have already reviewed the patch and it looks good, the old code was
doing something VERY stupid. Give me 2-3 days and I'll be in CVS.
Comment 13 Chema Celorio 2002-06-15 16:32:13 UTC
Created attachment 9245 [details] [review]
new version, fix indentation
Comment 14 Chema Celorio 2002-06-15 16:55:42 UTC
Commited to CVS. Thanks a lot for the patch, sorry it took so long for
it to make it into the CVS.
Comment 15 Akira TAGOH 2003-01-20 07:18:16 UTC
Well, 0.37 seems to not applied this patch. so the performance issue
still appears on GNOME 1.4 apps.
Comment 16 Akira TAGOH 2003-01-20 07:23:49 UTC
Created attachment 13690 [details] [review]
fix patch for 0.37
Comment 17 Chema Celorio 2003-01-20 17:05:14 UTC
I'm not planning to make another release of the 1.4 branch. I would
guess that you are patching gnome-print 1.4 version on redhat already?
rigth?
Comment 18 Akira TAGOH 2003-01-20 17:41:22 UTC
not yet. because when we updated gnome-print to 0.37, old patch was
removed so that it can't be applied cleanly, and we are waiting to be
taken it by the upstream.
Comment 19 Owen Taylor 2003-01-20 20:00:39 UTC
There's a lot of reindentation in the 0.37 version of this
patch ... did you run indent over the code or something?
Comment 20 Chema Celorio 2003-01-20 21:49:06 UTC
Owen: Akira's patch is based on the cvs commit that i did for
libgnomeprint. His original patch was clean, but when i commited to
the cvs, i fixed that file's indentation since that is what i've was
doing with the rest of libgnomeprint during that time.

It is partly my fault that his patch is like that but yes we probably
want do not want to change the indentation of gnome-1-4-branch. On the
other hand, I am not planning to do another release so I don't know if
it makes sense for me to apply to CVS, probably not.
Comment 21 Akira TAGOH 2003-01-21 03:36:55 UTC
Created attachment 13714 [details] [review]
non-indent patch
Comment 22 Chema Celorio 2003-01-28 02:44:50 UTC
I've given some thought to this bug and I'm going to close it as
WONTFIX  because I will not do a new release of gnome-print 1.4. There
is no point in keeping this bug opened nor commiting it to cvs.