<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - drawing performance worse than X"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c25">Comment # 25</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - drawing performance worse than X"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763350">bug 763350</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=rstrode%40redhat.com" title="Ray Strode [halfline] <rstrode@redhat.com>"> <span class="fn">Ray Strode [halfline]</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Matthias Clasen from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c20">comment #20</a>)
<span class="quote">> > The cost for all of the above is about .06 msec. So not really that bad.
> > Interestingly, half of the time is spent on close()!
> 2 pages is pretty small - if you have a maximized window, say 1024x768
> pixels, that is ~1000 pages at 1k pixels/page</span >
Right, if it takes .06msec to do 2 pages, then that's like ~20 to ~30 msec to
do a full window ! That pretty closely matches what you report in <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c3">comment 3</a>.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>