Subject: Re: Questioning an assumption
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.graphics.png.general
Date: 2004-09-05 21:02:54 GMT (4 years, 43 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours and 27 minutes ago)
At 12:31 PM 9/5/2004 -0600, Willem van Schaik wrote: >At 09:28 2004-09-05 -0700, Thomas wrote: >>But then libmng shrank... and it still didn't go back in. > >As I understand (Gerard will correct me if I'm wrong) that libmng contains >a complete PNG decoder. So, when you take a libmng stripped down such that >it can only decode this MNG subset and at the same time you take libpng out >of Mozilla, using libmng for PNG decoding, how much has Mozilla then grown >compared to the version using libpng? It depends on how you do the bookkeeping. One way to figure it is this: In mozilla-1.4, on a particular platform, libpng.a was 115k. Now, using the MNG_BUILD_MOZ_NO_JNG configuration and building without libpng, it's about 93k. So it's actually smaller. Figures for another platform were posted on bug #204520 recently, using the current libpng size instead of the moz-1.4 libpng size as the basis. Under these conditions MOZ_NO_JNG supporting PNG is about a 40k increase. There were also published some speed tests which laid to rest my fear that libmng is slower. I guess both libmng and libpng decoding times are dominated by the common zlib decompression time, because they came out virtually identical. Glenn -- Send the message body "help" to png-list-request@...
