Index: cc/trees/occlusion_tracker_perftest.cc |
diff --git a/cc/trees/occlusion_tracker_perftest.cc b/cc/trees/occlusion_tracker_perftest.cc |
index d9130746de716f1d4cf68f9efd2f0bb4e71609c2..14a9ffd272d18baa7e2179330f52c765055118f0 100644 |
--- a/cc/trees/occlusion_tracker_perftest.cc |
+++ b/cc/trees/occlusion_tracker_perftest.cc |
@@ -106,11 +106,13 @@ TEST_F(OcclusionTrackerPerfTest, UnoccludedContentRect_FullyOccluded) { |
transform_to_target.Translate(0, 96); |
do { |
+ Occlusion occlusion = |
vmpstr
2014/09/17 23:19:23
I'm not sure what's more useful to benchmark here.
vmpstr
2014/09/17 23:23:47
Ignore the caching statement, that's not going to
|
+ tracker.GetCurrentOcclusionForLayer(transform_to_target); |
for (int x = 0; x < viewport_rect.width(); x += 256) { |
for (int y = 0; y < viewport_rect.height(); y += 256) { |
gfx::Rect query_content_rect(x, y, 256, 256); |
- gfx::Rect unoccluded = tracker.UnoccludedContentRect( |
- query_content_rect, transform_to_target); |
+ gfx::Rect unoccluded = |
+ occlusion.GetUnoccludedContentRect(query_content_rect); |
// Sanity test that we're not hitting early outs. |
bool expect_empty = |
query_content_rect.right() <= viewport_rect.width() && |
@@ -181,11 +183,13 @@ TEST_F(OcclusionTrackerPerfTest, UnoccludedContentRect_10OpaqueLayers) { |
transform_to_target.Translate(0, 96); |
do { |
+ Occlusion occlusion = |
+ tracker.GetCurrentOcclusionForLayer(transform_to_target); |
for (int x = 0; x < viewport_rect.width(); x += 256) { |
for (int y = 0; y < viewport_rect.height(); y += 256) { |
gfx::Rect query_content_rect(x, y, 256, 256); |
- gfx::Rect unoccluded = tracker.UnoccludedContentRect( |
- query_content_rect, transform_to_target); |
+ gfx::Rect unoccluded = |
+ occlusion.GetUnoccludedContentRect(query_content_rect); |
} |
} |