On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Arno Waschk <hamama...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:27:53 +0200, Arno Waschk <hamama...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:53:21 +0200, Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Neil Puttock <n.putt...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>
>>>> On 13 July 2010 02:18, Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Does the attached patch help? For me, it reduces dramatically the
>>>> > number of times that combine_pure_heights (and also ly_scm2interval)
>>>> > is called, but it has very little effect on lilypond's overall running
>>>> > time (for the optimized build, at least).
>>>>
>>>> I've just tested this patch (after removing the bits which prevented
>>>> it from applying; they look like they belong to a fix for issue 1152.
>>>> :) It has a dramatic effect in several cases: on one 26 page score
>>>> it's halved the compilation time to just over a minute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ok, it seems like I should be benchmarking with bigger files; I was just
>>> trying mozart-hrn-3 :) I'll clean up the patch a bit a post it on
>>> rietveld.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>> Hi, with Joe's patch i got with my actual project's big score close to 25%
>> reduction on lilypond run time, which is very nice!
>> After git pull origin (onto Joe's patch) i got:
>>
>>
>> Zeilenumbrüche werden berechnet...terminate called after throwing an
>> instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
>> what(): std::bad_alloc
>> Aborted
>>
>> Can somebody help me?
>>
>> Thanks, Arno
>>
>
> seems this is something which is new (i tried as well 2.13.26).
> it just meens that the swap partition is full...
>
> looks my score is too long for lilypond, or too many accidentals?
>
> the following:
>
>
> \version "2.13.28"
> \layout { ragged-right = ##t }
>
> \relative c' {
> \key a \major
> \repeat unfold 1000 {
> f8 g f g fis gis a a
> f8 g f g fis gis a a
> %\pageBreak
> f8 g f g fis gis a a
> f8 g f g fis gis a a}
> c r r4 r2
> }
>
>
> dies in Accidental_placement::get_relevant_accidentals
>
> where etls.size is reported as 16000 in the loop. On my machine at i~13000,
> 4 GB memory, 2 GB swap space...
>
I just fixed a bug which caused memory consumption and time that is
quadratic in the number of accidentals, so this example should work much
better now.
> but was i actually had wanted to try was the question whether the layout
> goes quicker with manual page breaks (since i thought that would lead to
> lily only be looking for layout issues within two manual pagebreaks ...!?)
> which is does not seem to.
> playing with the repeat factor shows nice quadratic time growth, and hardly
> a difference whether the \pageBreak is commented out or not...
>
As per the discussion on bug 884, \pageBreak no longer speeds up the
page-breaking computation.
Cheers,
Joe
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
