Hello, Norio, and thank you for the benchmark code! I was able to use it, and here are results from my tests. I took the typical output values.
Your code from commit a16eb2f6: Opaque background: 146 ms Transparent background: 1083 ms My code from commit 26516f97: Opaque background: 142 ms Transparent background: 1800 ms Then I incorporated the optimizations suggested by Jonh Benediktsson, and here are the new results from commit fa57d052: Opaque background: 143 ms Transparent background: 150 ms In general, the Transparent test runs about 6-7 ms longer than the Opaque test, i.e. about 4.6% slower, which is a much better performance characteristic compared to the previous approaches. The updated code is posted here: https://github.com/AlexIljin/factor/tree/win-transparent-text-background 08.06.2019, 10:11, "KUSUMOTO Norio" <kusum...@na.rim.or.jp>: > Ouch, an e-mail wasn't sent to the mailing list because I sent it direct. > I rewrite the wrong part and send it again. > > On 2019/06/05 22:24, John Benediktsson wrote: >> Or clear the cache each time, so you don’t have to be lower level code... >>> On Jun 5, 2019, at 4:24 AM, Alexander Ilin <ajs...@yandex.ru>wrote: I >>> think the pairs of {font, string} are cached and only drawn once by the GUI >>> framework. I think you need to call the drawing code more directly to get >>> real performance data. > > Thank you, Alexander and John. > I decided to measure only internal processing time. ---=====--- Александр _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
