Updates:
Status: Verified
Comment #24 on issue 1926 by philehol...@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Confirmed fixed using Mozart horn regtest. On my system, time under
2.15.13 was 31.05 seconds; with 2.15.16 it's 1
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: -Patch-push fixed_2_15_15
Comment #23 on issue 1926 by bordage@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Pushed as 8adeb99e344bf047b9b3b9b48a9e97e59e8fc4d3.
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-review Patch-push
Comment #22 on issue 1926 by percival.music...@gmail.com: 2.15.12
processing speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
just push it, since it's been through a review
__
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-needs_work Patch-review
Comment #21 on issue 1926 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
The only outstanding comments are to push as two commits, and it is pretty
clear how the commit
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-review Patch-needs_work
Comment #20 on issue 1926 by colinpkc...@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Per comments on Rietveld
___
bug-lilypond mailing
Comment #19 on issue 1926 by percival.music.ca: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
yeah, the
git-cl upload -s (for "silent")
or
git-cl upload --no_code_issue
flag. Not very well documented yet.
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review
Comment #18 on issue 1926 by bordage@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
... Graham, is there a way to prevent git-cl from adding a comment each
time we update a patch?
Ne
Updates:
Labels: Patch-new
Comment #17 on issue 1926 by bordage@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926#c17
Optimizes note-heads.cc and introduces robust_symbol2string.
Potential fix to issue 1926.
http://codereview.ap
Comment #16 on issue 1926 by n.putt...@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Oops, forgot to mention these times are for mozart-hrn-3.ly.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu
Comment #15 on issue 1926 by n.putt...@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Since I keep a mingw build handy most of the time (rebuilds only take about
10 minutes, mostly for the installer), here are the timings running under
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review
Comment #14 on issue 1926 by pkx1...@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Passes make and make check throws up no reg tests except graphviz.log:
--snip--
@@ -14,9 +14,9 @@
Writin
Comment #13 on issue 1926 by percival.music.ca: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Because the original git-cl stored credential somehow in upload.py but I
couldn't easily figure out how to re-use those.
_
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #12 on issue 1926 by bordage@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Looks like it worked this time. The only difference is that I wasn't
creating a new issue this time.
Small question
Comment #11 on issue 1926 by bordage@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926#c11
Optimizes note-heads.cc and introduces robust_symbol2string.
Potential fix to issue 1926.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5233042
___
Comment #10 on issue 1926 by percival.music.ca: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
I wasn't able to figure out what went wrong, so I've added an extra print
diagnostic to git-cl. If you see something again, please post that message.
Updates:
Labels: Patch-new
Comment #9 on issue 1926 by bordage@gmail.com: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
http://codereview.appspot.com/5233042/
I uploaded the patch using our brand new git-cl. I got this warning:
««« [.
"Graham Percival" wrote in message
news:20111003085304.GA19634@gperciva-desktop...
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 01:04:17AM -0700, Keith OHara wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:46:08 -0700, Peekay Ex wrote:
>What should I've be looking for in a make check (if anything) that
>might have alerted me to th
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 01:04:17AM -0700, Keith OHara wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:46:08 -0700, Peekay Ex wrote:
>
> >What should I've be looking for in a make check (if anything) that
> >might have alerted me to this?
>
> Nothing, really. These lookups don't get counted because nobody
> exp
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:46:08 -0700, Peekay Ex wrote:
The issue 1839 patch tripled the number of named-glyph-lookups per note-head.
What should I've be looking for in a make check (if anything) that
might have alerted me to this?
Nothing, really. These lookups don't get counted because nob
hello,
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Keith OHara wrote:
>> Looks like the enhancement for issue 1839 caused the slowdown.
>>
>> If we avoid the more complicated note-head.cc:internal_print() from 1839,
>> [...]
>> then input that used to double in compilation time between versions now
>> takes
> Looks like the enhancement for issue 1839 caused the slowdown.
>
> If we avoid the more complicated note-head.cc:internal_print() from 1839,
> [...]
> then input that used to double in compilation time between versions now
> takes [the same time] on either .11 or .12.
>
The issue 1839 patch
Comment #8 on issue 1926 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Looks like the enhancement for issue 1839 caused the slowdown.
If we avoid the more complicated note-head.cc:internal_print() from 1839,
{ \override No
Comment #7 on issue 1926 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
The minimal example does note even need to have stems, just note heads.
Having more objects per measure makes the difference bigger.
Change in compilatio
Comment #6 on issue 1926 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
The minimal example needs to have stems.
Change in compilation time under Windows, 2.15.11 -> 2.15.12, in seconds :
{ \repeat unfold 1000 r4 }
Comment #5 on issue 1926 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Shucks, I must have made a mistake figuring the elapsed times earlier.
Checking again, both .12 and .13 are slow for me on Windows. I'll delete
my m
lilyp...@googlecode.com writes:
> Updates:
> Status: Accepted
> Labels: -fixed_2_15_13
>
> Comment #4 on issue 1926 by philehol...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12
> processing speed problems
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
>
> No. On my Windows Vista box, for a fairl
On Oct 1, 2011, at 11:47 AM, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
> Updates:
> Status: Accepted
> Labels: -fixed_2_15_13
>
> Comment #4 on issue 1926 by philehol...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12 processing
> speed problems
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
>
> No. On my
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Labels: -fixed_2_15_13
Comment #4 on issue 1926 by philehol...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
No. On my Windows Vista box, for a fairly complex piece of music (Finale
Act I
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: fixed_2_15_13
Comment #3 on issue 1926 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Compilation times for a set of scores, using GUB builds for Windows
2.14.2 : 7.0 minutes
2.1
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:45:52 +, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
Comment #1 on issue 1926 by tdaniels...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12
processing speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Mike said:
Here, on current master from my VirtualBox, paper-twosided.ly takes
8
Comment #2 on issue 1926 by tdaniels...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
I've just tried rebuilding various releases and timed paper-twosided.ly on
each of them. This is under ubuntu under VBox under Windows.
master:
Comment #1 on issue 1926 by tdaniels...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12 processing
speed problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
Mike said:
Here, on current master from my VirtualBox, paper-twosided.ly takes
8ish seconds with current master and 7ish seconds rewound to
079a1
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> Are there any good profiling tools that'd help with this sorta thing?
CXXFLAGS=-pg ./configure
And then use gprof after the program has run (it will write profiling
data to some file which gprof reads).
--
David Kastrup
_
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:43 PM, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
> Status: Accepted
> Owner:
> Labels: Type-Critical Regression
>
> New issue 1926 by philehol...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12 processing speed
> problems
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
>
> On my system, 2.15
Status: Accepted
Owner:
Labels: Type-Critical Regression
New issue 1926 by philehol...@googlemail.com: 2.15.12 processing speed
problems
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926
On my system, 2.15.12 is _much_ slower than 2.15.10 for files of a fair
complexity. The Moz
35 matches
Mail list logo
