Hi,
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Cameron Horsburgh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:17:37PM +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > Mats Bengtsson escreveu:
> > > I can see both these problems. I just tried a 7 page score and even
> > > though it
> > > didn't take so extremely long to process, LilyPond was clearly allocating
> > > lots of memory while outputting the PS code, since my machine went into
> > > heavy swapping.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need to have something more specific. Between which 2 versions did
> > you start seeing worse behavior?
> >
>
> I just tried the same score with 2.11.10 and I had no problems.
If you compile LilyPond from a local git repository, you can find the
commit relatively fast:
# start bisecting
$ git bisect start
# mark "HEAD" as bad
$ git bisect bad HEAD
# mark "2.11.10" as good
$ git bisect good release/2.11.10
# now compile it, try it, and depending on the behaviour, mark it
$ git bisect bad
# or
$ git bisect good
# repeat with compilation and marking bad or good, until git tells
# you which commit introduced the bad behaviour, then reset:
$ git bisect reset
This procedure should give you (relatively painlessly) the commit which
has to be fixed. Look what it introduced with
$ git show <commit>
Hth,
Dscho
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
