[Piglit] [PATCH 5/7] html: Use the vastly faster "fixed" table layout algorithm.

[Dylan Baker]

I tested at 70pt and that seems to accommodate up to 99999/99999 (a 5 digit
over 5 digit with slash), it's definitely not a permanent solution, but I
don't think we're going to hit a hundred thousand tests too soon. in the
long run we should replace tables with flex-boxes anyway.

There is an updated version on my github.


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>wrote:

> On 04/25/2013 05:02 PM, Dylan Baker wrote:
>
>> From: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>
>>
>> The usual "auto" table layout algorithm makes the browser look at the
>> contents of each row in the table in order to determine the layout.  We
>> have 10,000 rows.  This is insanely expensive.
>>
>> The "fixed" algorithm just uses the <col/> info, and possibly the first
>> row.  This works out just fine.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Dylan Baker <baker.dylan.c at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   templates/index.css | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/templates/index.css b/templates/index.css
>> index 27128e4..d066a04 100644
>> --- a/templates/index.css
>> +++ b/templates/index.css
>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ table {
>>         padding-left: 1.75em;
>>         padding-right: 1.75em;
>>         width: 100%;
>> +       table-layout: fixed;
>>   }
>>
>>   col:not(:first-child) {
>>
>
> Sadly, this makes the columns too narrow, as it's based purely on the 50pt
> width in the CSS, and not on the content.  I'm not sure what to do about
> it.  We could bump the width to 100pt, but I'm not sure if that's a
> reasonable solution.
>
> The rest of the patches look fine and appear to work.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/attachments/20130429/57c1e61a/attachment.html>