Add memory reporter integration for the fragment and box trees that are
persisted in the layout thread.
Testing: Looked at the numbers for https://servo.org and
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/. The former was very small, but the latter
was 700mb.
---------
Signed-off-by: Josh Matthews <josh@joshmatthews.net>
Start storing a link to laid-out `Fragment`s in `LayoutBoxBase`, so that
these are accessible for queries and eventually for incremental layout.
Some box tree data structures lacked a `LayoutBoxBase`, such as table
tracks and table track groups[^1].
In addition, start using these `Fragment`s for queries instead of
walking the entire `Fragment` tree. Currently, this isn't possible for
most queries as `Fragment`s do not cache their absolute offsets (which
are often necessary). This change uses the new box tree `Fragment`s for
most resolved style queries.
[^1]: Note that only rows and row groups store `Fragment`s as columsn
and
colgroups do not produce any.
Testing: This is covered by existing tests.
Fixes: This is part of #36525.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
This starts to enable the fragment cache for all layout modes, except
grid. The main tricky bit here is that update points are absolutes and
these need to be laid out again in their containing blocks. We punt a
little bit on this, by forcing ancestors of update points to rebuild
their Fragments. This is just the first step.
Testing: We do not currently have layout performance tests, but will try
to run some tests manually later. Behavior is covered by the WPT.
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
* Use 2024 style edition
Signed-off-by: Simon Wülker <simon.wuelker@arcor.de>
* Reformat all code
Signed-off-by: Simon Wülker <simon.wuelker@arcor.de>
---------
Signed-off-by: Simon Wülker <simon.wuelker@arcor.de>
The specification doesn't say how to deal with percentages when
determining the minimum and maximum size of a table grid, so follow the
approach that Chromium uses.
Essentially, figure out the "missing" percentage from the non-percentage
columns and then use that to work backwards to fine the size of the
percentage ones.
This change is larger than one might expect, because this percentage
approach shouldn't happen for tables that are descendants of a flex,
grid or table container (except when there is an interceding absolute).
We have to pass this information down when building the box tree. This
will also make it easier to improve propagated text decorations in the
future.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
Co-authored-by: Oriol Brufau <obrufau@igalia.com>
There were two kinds of layout tracing controlled by the same debugging
option:
- modern layout: Functionality that dumped a JSON serialization of the
layout tree before and after layout.
- legacy layout: A scope based tracing that reported the process of
layout in a structured way.
I don't think anyone working on layout is using either of these two
features. For modern layout requiring data structure to implement
`serde` serialization is incredibly inconvenient and also generates a
lot of extra code.
We also have a more modern tracing functionality based on perfetto that
we have started to use for layout and IMO it's actually being used and
more robust.
Signed-off-by: Martin Robinson <mrobinson@igalia.com>
