Only dump layer tree(using MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG)

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla26

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
5 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: jerry, Assigned: jerry)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla26
ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments)

Even though we only need the layer's property not the image surface data, b2g still dump the surface data(if we only define "MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG").
Created attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review]
only dump layer property with MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG symbol

Remove image surface dump with MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG symbol
Created attachment 798474 [details] [diff] [review]
test code for layer dump

for dump layer testing
Attachment #798471 - Flags: review?(matt.woodrow)
Assignee: nobody → hshih
Comment on attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review]
only dump layer property with MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG symbol

Review of attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: gfx/layers/Layers.cpp
@@ +1041,5 @@
>      fprintf(aFile, ">");
>    }
>    DumpSelf(aFile, aPrefix);
> +
> +#ifdef MOZ_DUMP_PAINTING

Check aDumpHtml too, like we do for WriteSnapshotLinkToDumpFile.

It's still probably not exactly what we want, but it's better.
Attachment #798471 - Flags: review?(matt.woodrow) → review+
(In reply to Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow) from comment #3)
> Comment on attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review]
> only dump layer property with MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG symbol
> 
> Review of attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review]:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ::: gfx/layers/Layers.cpp
> @@ +1041,5 @@
> >      fprintf(aFile, ">");
> >    }
> >    DumpSelf(aFile, aPrefix);
> > +
> > +#ifdef MOZ_DUMP_PAINTING
> 
> Check aDumpHtml too, like we do for WriteSnapshotLinkToDumpFile.
> 
> It's still probably not exactly what we want, but it's better.

Sorry, I'm not sure that I fully understand.
Html format output occur only within aDumpHtml block.
Do we need more test condition?
Flags: needinfo?(matt.woodrow)
So, in the old code writing HTML formatted and dumping of images were treated as the same thing. We always dumped images when writing HTML, and never dumped them when writing text.

So my suggestion was to make the new image dumping do the same thing.

The 'better' fix would be to make these separate options and change aDumpHtml to a flag word that lets us choose the two things independently.

You're welcome to have a go at this, but it may not be worth it unless you need this functionality right now.
Flags: needinfo?(matt.woodrow)
(In reply to Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow) from comment #5)
> So, in the old code writing HTML formatted and dumping of images were
> treated as the same thing. We always dumped images when writing HTML, and
> never dumped them when writing text.
> 
> So my suggestion was to make the new image dumping do the same thing.
> 
> The 'better' fix would be to make these separate options and change
> aDumpHtml to a flag word that lets us choose the two things independently.
> 
> You're welcome to have a go at this, but it may not be worth it unless you
> need this functionality right now.

I will dump the image surfaces with html output, thus we can figure out the hierarchy of these image surfaces.
Thanks!
Keywords: checkin-needed
please land attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review] on mozilla central
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3d5ec876edb3
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla26
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.