911730 - Only dump layer tree(using MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG)

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Graphics: Layers, defect)

Description

[Jerry Shih[:jerry] (UTC+8) (inactive)]

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").

Comment 1

[Jerry Shih[:jerry] (UTC+8) (inactive)]

Attachment: only dump layer property with MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG symbol

Remove image surface dump with MOZ_LAYERS_HAVE_LOG symbol

Comment 2

[Jerry Shih[:jerry] (UTC+8) (inactive)]

Attachment: test code for layer dump

for dump layer testing

Comment 3

[Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow)]

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.

Comment 4

[Jerry Shih[:jerry] (UTC+8) (inactive)]

(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?

Comment 5

[Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow)]

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.

Comment 6

[Jerry Shih[:jerry] (UTC+8) (inactive)]

(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!

Comment 7

[Jerry Shih[:jerry] (UTC+8) (inactive)]

please land attachment 798471 [details] [diff] [review] on mozilla central

Comment 8

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/3d5ec876edb3

Comment 9

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3d5ec876edb3