On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Michael Käppler <xmichae...@web.de> wrote: > > > I have also a file which I am unable to compile because it doesn't finish > > even in 12 hours and more. In the thread you mentioned I was pointed to > my > > insufficient memory size. However, what I notice is that compiling time > > seems to increase in an exponential way with larger scores. Is this only > a > > result of my bad system specs? > > > > Three points: > > > > 1. It would be very interesting to create a "Lilypond benchmark suite" to > > help objectifying such questions as you, Trevor, have started. > > In the nicest case it could be ran on different builds automatically to > see > > whether there are huge changes between different releases. > > > > 2. I encounter a strange behaviour that nobody was able to explain up to > > now. Simply spoken: a lilypond foo1.ly foo2.ly foo3.ly foo4.ly is much > >>slower< than a lilypond foo1.ly && lilypond foo2.ly && lilypond foo3.ly&& > > lilypond foo4.ly. Normally I would expect the opposite. (e.g. LilyPond > does > > not need to load fonts several times ...) > > It sounds like we may be leaking memory somewhere again. > FWIW, I let the process in question run for 8 hours before killing it, at which time virtual memory had grown to just under 800 megs. If time opens up for anyone to hunt for leaks then I'm more than happy to ship over the input file; it's a single file and so relatively transportable. -- Trevor Bača trevorb...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
