On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 15:15:42 (-0700), BGM wrote: > Well, it seems like it hangs on just starting lilypond. (and, as I've > mentioned, I didn't have this problem with version 2.18) > > As soon as it gets past this line... > So, this line takes 99% of the time in the progressbar: > Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.19.44 [whatever.ly]... > > then all the rest progresses nice and fast. > > Processing `C:/hymns/whatever.ly' > Parsing... > Interpreting music...[8][16] > Preprocessing graphical objects... > Interpreting music... > MIDI output to `whatever.mid'... > Finding the ideal number of pages... > Fitting music on 1 page... > Drawing systems... > Layout output to `./tmp-lilypond-WYGD9b'... > Converting to `whatever.pdf'... > Deleting `./tmp-lilypond-WYGD9b'... > Success: compilation successfully completed > Completed successfully in 30.0".
Here are some timings off a reasonably sized carol that generates seven MIDI files and three PDFs. Old and new versions alternate (2.18.2 and 2.19.42). # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches real 0m33.921s user 0m20.040s sys 0m0.716s real 0m28.471s user 0m17.696s sys 0m0.756s real 0m20.586s user 0m19.832s sys 0m0.556s real 0m18.838s user 0m17.600s sys 0m0.744s real 0m20.535s user 0m19.800s sys 0m0.596s real 0m18.677s user 0m17.456s sys 0m0.844s So the new version wins by about two seconds. Note the difference that caching the program makes. You've got to run a program twice (at least) to get a realistic time. I always put all the structure of my scores in \score; ie I don't write variable = \new ... so I have no comparative data. However, if you try doing this, remember again to run both versions twice or you may only be measuring the efficiency of the operating system. Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
