<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - Make fontconfig cache relocatable" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101889#c15">Comment # 15</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - Make fontconfig cache relocatable" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101889">bug 101889</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:freedesktop@behdad.org" title="Behdad Esfahbod <freedesktop@behdad.org>"> Behdad Esfahbod</a> <pre>(In reply to Alexander Larsson from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=101889#c13">comment #13</a>) > Yes, we could do it lazily, true. However, I don't understand what you mean > about sharing with others. When the mapped file is not modified, the backing memory is shared across processes. They are copy-on-write. If we can completely avoid changing is even better. I have a scheme in mind that does that. > Here is what i imagine: > > [Shared mmaped cache data] > ... > FontName="TheFont" > FileName=offset 0 > ... > FontName="OtherFont" > FileName=offset 1 > ... > FileNameTable > [offset 0] > [offset 12] > FileNameStrings > "TheFont.ttf\0OtherFont.ttf\0" > > This would be readonly and shared by all clients. > To go from a cache element to a filename you would normally > go from offset in FileNameTable to offset in FileNameStrings, all shared by > everyone. However, in the case where the cache is loaded in a non-canonical > location, you'd allocate an in-memory (non-shared) FileNameTable and > FileNameStrings array, which would would rewrite and use instead. > > Such a setup could be lazy, either doing everything the first time you get a > filename, or it could allocate filenames one-by-one lazily. (Although then > you create a lot of small allocations instead of a single large one.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>