There's not really much in the way of settings to increase performance. Allocating more memory to the GPU may help by allowing the GPU to cache more paths if it does that (or at least allow you to allocate more).rleonardi wrote:Hi all,
I've been using OpenVG on RPi3 just for few weeks, so I am a very beginner about it. I'm not reaching "good" time performances for my specific application. Could you possibly answer the following questions:
- Do specific OpenVG (or other) settings exist to increase time performances? I tried by increasing memory for GPU, by overclocking RPi, but the results did not change.
- Do I have to explicitely enable the hardware acceleration?
- I started by referring to Shape library and its examples. Where could I find futher examples about OpenVG?
It should be there. It's defined on line 719 of /usr/include/freetype2/config/ftheader.hrleonardi wrote:I get error "fontsystem.c:9:10: error: #include expects "FILENAME" or <FILENAME>".
Line 9 of fontsystem.c is "#include FT_FONT_FORMATS_H".
Line 6 includes ft2build.h, which includes ftheader.h.
In /usr/include/freetype2/config/ftheader.h, I can find FT_FREETYPE_H and FT_OUTLINE_H, but not FT_FONT_FORMATS_H.
Maybe the "sudo apt-get install" install a wrong version of freetype?
Thank you for any help.
Not sure about timings of individual shapes but an arc is more complicated than a simple polygon.rleonardi wrote:I can see that Arc() takes about 400:500 usecs and Polygon() takes about 250:300 usecs. Are these time consume values the ones expected? Am I doing something wrong in configuring OpenGL or something else?
By looking into libshapes.c, I can see that:
- Arc() calls newpath() and vguArc(), instead of calling vgModifyPathCoords() as vgModifyPathCoords() does. What is the reason?
- Arc() does not call vgDestroyPath(). Is it correct?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests