Bob Arning  <arning at charm.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:02:27 -0700 Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:
> >96.6% {10202ms} Project class>>spawnNewProcess
> >   |96.5% {10191ms} PasteUpMorph>>doOneCycle
> >   |  96.5% {10191ms} WorldState>>doOneCycleFor:
> >   |    83.7% {8840ms} WorldState>>doOneCycleNowFor:
> >   |      |81.7% {8628ms} WorldState>>displayWorldSafely:
> >   |      |  81.7% {8628ms} PasteUpMorph>>displayWorld
> >   |      |    81.7% {8628ms} PasteUpMorph>>privateOuterDisplayWorld
> >   |      |      81.7% {8628ms} WorldState>>displayWorld:submorphs:
> >   |      |        81.1% {8565ms} WorldState>>forceDamageToScreen:
> >   |      |          81.1% {8565ms} DisplayScreen>>forceDamageToScreen:
> >   |      |            81.1% {8565ms} DisplayScreen>>forceToScreen:
> >   |    12.8% {1352ms} WorldState>>interCyclePause:
> >   |      12.6% {1331ms} Delay>>wait
> >   |        12.5% {1320ms} primitives
> >3.4% {359ms} ProcessBrowser>>startAutoUpdate
> >   3.4% {359ms} ProcessBrowser>>updateProcessList
> 
> This...
> 
> >   |      |            81.1% {8565ms} DisplayScreen>>forceToScreen:
> 
> is *much* more than I have ever seen on the Mac and I wonder if unix can be so different. It would be interesting to modify DisplayScreen>>forceToScreen: just a tad to count how many times it is getting called - is this one call that takes a long time or a million calls that take little time each. Also, what is the setting of the preference #higherPerformance?
> 

Recall that he is running it across the network, and thus
force-to-screen is much more expensive than unusual.

BUT -- why is Squeak drawing anything at all?!  What could be on the
screen that needs updating?

Julian, is there *any* morph left on the screen?  How about flaps?


-Lex