Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes: > Martin Tarenskeen wrote Saturday, April 18, 2015 6:29 PM > > > Just a wild guess: did anyone on Windows try the same speed comparison using > > the --ps option instead of pdf output? > > Just done that. The conversion from ps to pdf takes only a couple of seconds > with either version, so it looks like GhostScript is *not* involved.
> On the Pango website I see an entry against the changes for Pango 1.28.2 > > - Improve performance on Windows especially for non-Latin scripts > > and in 1.25.4 > > - Improved win32 performance > > Is this the version of Pango installed in 2.19.18? > Until 2.19.17 LilyPond used Pango version 1.26.0 Just now with 2.19.18 LilyPond switched to Pango verison 1.28.3 ( https://github.com/gperciva/gub ) The Pango patch "[basic-win32] Increase performance of Uniscribe code" made it into Pango 1.25.4, but it broke ligatures and was reverted for Pango 1.26.0 It looks like some other regression _also_ broke ligatures on Windows. The patch that probably solved our ligature/kerning bugs 2656 and 2657 "Bug 609326 - Complex script shaping failed in the FT2 backend on Windows" made it into Pango 1.28.0 A second attempt at making use of Uniscribe faster "Improve performance on Windows especially for non-Latin scripts" made it into Pango 1.28.2 and could be the cause of our speedup ( https://git.gnome.org/browse/pango/log/?h=1.28 ) _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user