2015-05-07 16:25 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>:
> \repeat unfold 800 { c' d' e'8 d' c'4 }
>
> three times with averages of
>
> 2.16.2: ~21.5 sec.
> 2.19.15: ~ 16 sec.
> 2.19.17: ~ 14 sec.
> 2.19.20: ~ 12 sec.
>
> on Debian.
>
>
I did the same test on debian (sid), running the same version several times.
Where not specified, lilypond is installed from the "generic packages"
distributed by lilypond.org.
Recent versions:
2.19.18: ~8 sec
2.19.19: ~8 sec
2.19.20 (compiled): ~8 sec
This is interesting:
2.18.2 (debian package in /usr/bin): ~7 sec
2.18.2 (generic package in /usr/local/bin): ~12 sec
It seems that 2.18.2 from lilypond.org is significantly slower than the
rest.
> However, there's one more thing to consider here, particularly with the
> recent experiences wrt .ly compilation failures, is if there's a
> significant difference between binary releases and custom builds. From the
> above only 2.19.20 is self-compiled. But a self-compiled modified 2.19.16
> also takes only 12 sec. As do modified builds of 2.17.3 and 2.19.6!
> Unfortunately my binary release of 2.18.2 is broken ATM.
>
> So according to my (limited) tests it seems that LilyPond itself isn't
> really speeding up. What *is* reducing compilation time seems to be related
> to the binary releases only.
> Whatever that means ...
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
