On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net> wrote: > On 12.2.3 it will process 1150 repeats, but not 1200. On 12.13.35 1050 is > OK, 1100 is not. > > I've attached a graph of how both use working set memory - it does appear to > be related to trying to allocate a total of more than about 450 megs. It's > not a problem with physical memory being available - my PC has 6 Gig and > it's nowhere hear using it all.
How interesting. Of course, LilyPond-win being a 32-bit app, it shouldn't be able to use more than roughly 3.6 GB anyway. (Or is it just up to the OS?) As for the Win vs Linux inequality, that's something I noticed a long time ago: for instance, at some point I couldn't compile my opera *at all* on Windows whereas it only took 12 minutes on GNU/Linux x86_64, and about 20 minutes with GNU/Linux x86. Similarly, I couldn't compile Nicolas' scores with less than 2 GB RAM, whilst with 4 GB it worked fine. What concerns me more is that according to your data, LilyPond's overall capacity might be dropping between the last stable version. Cheers, Valentin _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
