On 2020/05/01 11:41:13, dak wrote: > On 2020/05/01 11:18:11, hahnjo wrote: > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc > > File lily/general-scheme.cc (right): > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/583830043/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode783 > > lily/general-scheme.cc:783: command += "(" + ly_scm2string (input) + ") run"; > > On 2020/05/01 06:42:43, hanwenn wrote: > > > This doesn't hook very deeply into GS internals or how we arrange the page. > > > Could we get the same speedup by putting the batching into an encompassing > .ps > > > file, and calling GS on that file once? > > > > I think this would require substantial refactoring of how LilyPond works. As > far > > as I understand, currently each input file is handled separately and temporary > > files are deleted after processing. To get similar speedup, we have to reuse > the > > interpreter for the complete run of LilyPond. > > > > > Also: is there a GPL'd version of Ghostscript for which this works? > > > > GPL Ghostscript 9.06 from 2012 is apparently the last GPL version. You > probably > > don't want to stick with dependencies of that age ;-) > > It would need to be GPLv3+ anyway. Haven't checked, though. > > preview-latex <https://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html> works by > feeding scraps of PostScript control through stdin. The main thing is that > startup and font loading are not once per graphics but per document. I have > little enough clue how this would work for us, but obviously any way of using a > single Ghostscript session for multiple snippet conversions, including just a > large batch of input files generating lots of small output files with a > predictable naming scheme (this is what LaTeX/Ghostscript under control of > preview.sty can do) will get us significant benefits. The Ghostscript API is > just one way of organising this.
Sure, we could also open an "interactive" gs command and keep it around for the process. I didn't consider this different from using the API, but if the license is happy as long as it's a separate process... https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/
