On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:47:15 +0100, Michael Drake wrote:
> Are scaled image plots particularly expensive on your system? It should
> be less common now.
Hardware accelerated scales aren't too bad, but if that isn't
available the alternative is very slow. This is definitely less
common now anywa
In message <51ca8a0eb2t...@netsurf-browser.org>
Michael Drake wrote:
> Please try r12243.
>
> I'd be interested to know the speeds you get
No objective tests (hence the unusual snip point), but I have the
impression on Slashdot, The Register, etc. that r12243 is /much/
snappier than p
On 27 Apr 2011 Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <2a18a0ca51.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>,
>Richard Porter wrote:
>> I don't like it either, especially if the image dimensions are
>> specified. It would be better to truncate or wrap the text if it
>> doesn't fit.
> Please try r12243.
That
In article <2a18a0ca51.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>,
Richard Porter wrote:
> I don't like it either, especially if the image dimensions are
> specified. It would be better to truncate or wrap the text if it
> doesn't fit.
Please try r12243.
--
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://
In article
,
Chris Young wrote:
> Images without sizes always seem to load stretched initially before
> they find their proper size.
Initially, we layout the document before we have the images (unless they
happen to be cached).
If the document tells us what size to make an image (e.g. with
On 27 Apr 2011 Chris Young wrote:
> Images without sizes always seem to load stretched initially before
> they find their proper size. I can see that this will add in some
> additional processing for resizing images that don't need to be
> resized - probably causing some document reflow too. Is
Hi Michael
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:39:23 +0100, Michael Drake wrote:
> However, reflowing the page made redrawing the entire window necessary.
> I've just made a change that should reduce the amount of document
> reflowing we do, and therefore the amount of plotting to screen.
I know this wasn't
In article ,
Richard Porter wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2011 Michael Drake wrote:
> > Restart NetSurf, open a browser window and resize it vertically so only
> > the toolbar is showing.
> For the first test (thumbnail index) the time is around 6.7s (as
> opposed to 29.1s for a full height window)
O
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: David Sandberg [mailto:david_sandb...@alice-dsl.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. April 2011 22:25
An: ''
Betreff: Compiling on Fedora 13
I'd try to build netsurf like the documentation for Fedora with all the
Dependencies build.
It was not possible to compile
