Hi Cameron, Cameron McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/04/2007 09:41:30 PM:
> After fixing the memory leak tests (made a couple of object references > WeakReferences in the test classes?although it seems now that running > those tests from the command line is fine, but in the whole regard test > run I still get JFrame objects not cleared), I ran regard on my Linux > (1.6.0-b105), Windows (1.5.0_10-b03) and Mac (1.5.0_06-64) machines. I wouldn't worry about this, probably the object get's stuck in a generation that isn't collected. If it runs fine by it's self it is doubtful that there is a real problem. > There are a number of problems on the Mac, which I would prefer to be > fixed before the release if possible. The problems fall in to a few > different categories: > > ? Text layout With the possible exception of italic text it looks to me like these are all just cases of the Mac OS X glyph vector class being hopelessly broken. Can you try adding a small amount of rotation and seeing if that fixes most of these, like it does for the 'flow text' stuff? Also are all these still broken in Java 6? > Incorrect horizontal text placement of italic text. > Incorrect vertical text placement. > lengthAdjust="spacingAndGlyphs" not computed properly. > Vertical text aligned horizontally instead. > glyph-orientation-horizontal rotated text goes in the wrong > direction. > ? Flow text layout > Text is all over the place. > ? Flow text extension layout > > ? Gradients Most of these look fairly ok. > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,linearGradientRepeat This looks to me like it's rendering the gradient at lower resolution than the reference. > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,gradientLimit > Top right gradient wrong. Once again I wonder if it's rendering at lower resolution... > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,gradientPoint > Gradients wrong. Got this ouptut on the console, so it may be a VM > bug: It looks that way, perhaps it's requesting a _huge_ gradient bitmap (I noticed Mac OS X requests the entire gradient block at once instead of in small tiles). > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,masking-mask-BE-05 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,masking-mask-BE-06 > Mask gradient wrong. Hmm, looks like the gradient opacity is being interpreted 'backwards'. > ? Non pixel aligning I don't know is this really important? I suspect that it might be related to the fact that the Sun JVM likes to snap end points to pixels, so it's possible that the Mac OS rendering is the more 'correct' one. We turn off the pixel snap when you set shape-rendering to "geometricPrecision". You might see if they render the same under that setting if so I would write this off as unimportant (it can be controlled through content). > ? Opacity For the most part these are subtle. The 'paintOpacity' test starts to get bad. I wonder if they aren't just compositing in a different color space (linear for example). > ? Miscellaneous > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,batik70 > The vertical stripe background renders incorrectly. The aqua stripe > seems to be pink. Also, the path forming the bottom part of the ?i? > glyph isn?t closed. > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,moonPhases > The lat/long lines on the earths don?t show unless zoomed right in. > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,histogramNormalization > Image normalisation not done. > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,feConvolveMatrix > Bottom right case doesn?t have black in the right places. > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,maskRegions > Masking is not anti-aliased. (Maybe that?s just the Mac Java2D > implementation that defaults to non-anti-aliasing.) Well, we do the masking implementation so I'm not sure how they could make it aliased. Perhaps when we draw into the mask buffer we don't turn on anti-aliasing. > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?mac,fontOnPath > Text selection highlight looks a bit strange (white border is not > right on the edge of the highlight). There are some differences between how mac os X centers stroke on the fill. > These on Windows: I don't have any of these on my windows machine. What JVM are you running? > > ? Opacity > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?win,enableBackground,1,3 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?win,svgEnableBackground,1,3 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?win,paintOpacity,1,3 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?win,polygon_points2,1,3 > Semi-opaque paints are slightly different from the reference image. > > ? Gradients > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?win,feTile,1,3 > Colours slightly off. > These on Linux: Probably have the same root cause as above... > ? Opacity > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?linux,enableBackground,1,3 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?linux,svgEnableBackground,1,3 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?linux,paintOpacity,1,3 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?linux,polygon_points2,1,3 > Semi-opaque paints are slightly different from the reference image. > > ? Gradients > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?linux,feTile,1,3 > Colours slightly off. > > ? ICC colour > > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?linux,paintType,1,3 > http://mcc.id.au/temp/t/show?linux,color-colorProf-BE-03,1,3 > ICC colours render slightly differently from the reference image. > > Some of these may be just due to different JRE versions doing > compositing a bit differently; whether they?re incorrect I?m not sure. Yah, I'm not too concerned with anything I see in the last set... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
