Closed Bug 911730 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

Only dump layer tree(using MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG)

Categories

(Core :: Graphics: Layers, defect)

ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)
defect
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla26

People

(Reporter: jerry, Assigned: jerry)

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

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").
Remove image surface dump with MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG symbol
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!
please land attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review] on mozilla central
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3d5ec876edb3
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla26
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.