Re: [dev] [st] font fallback

From: Charlie Kester <>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:33:06 -0800

On 01/05/2013 06:57 AM, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Greetings.
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:57:21 +0100 Charlie Kester<> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2012 12:20 AM, Kai Hendry wrote:
>>> Initially I was worried that the newer version was somehow slower to
>>> the version I was running before.
>> Not slower, but definitely bigger. The stripped executable is now 16x
>> the size of that from the 0.3 release -- thanks, no doubt, to these font
>> caches, which are implemented as static arrays.
> That’s only partially true. The array is adding 48k, which another patch
> series will reduce. Most of the additional memory usage is due to the
> font handling. So the inability of font handling in is
> the reason why too much has to be done over and over again. Yet another
> abstraction layer would hide it but waste the same resources.


I took a closer look at the stripped executables using objdump, and most
of the increase is in the .rodata section:

v0.3: 0cach (3,244)
latest git: 16934h (92,468)
But unless I'm mistaken, the static arrays go in the .data or .bss
section (which also increased, but not by 16x.)

So I must take back the allegation that the caches are the main culprit
Received on Sat Jan 05 2013 - 16:33:06 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Jan 05 2013 - 16:36:04 CET