Miguel Jesus wrote > > ArnoldTheresius wrote >> >> Miguel Jesus wrote >>> I finally got the file to compile. I had to set the LILYPOND_GC_YIELD to >>> 100. Anyone knows why it worked that way and not the default one? >>> >>> Anyway, it took 700 seconds to compile, which is a lot more that it took >>> you. As you said, I only saw 1 CPU being used. Can lilypond use more >>> than 1 CPU to make things faster? >>> >>> ... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bug-lilypond mailing list
>>> bug-lilypond@ >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond >> Well, I did try to compile it on Win7/64 with several different settings >> to LILYPOND_GC_YIELD (100, 70, 50, 35, 25, 18, 13, 9, 7, 1). All trials >> faild at my setup. The "commited memory usage" for the 32bit Lilypond >> process displayed in the taks manager was approx. 1.3 GB in all processes >> at the time they failed, which is much away from the 4 GB 32bit >> applications can reach under 64bit-Windows (3 GB under 32bit-Windows). >> I wonder, if there is a software limit for the heap in guile. >> >> ArnoldTheresius > Actually, the memory usage for my file when it crashed was also 1.3 GB and > there are more people reporting that value. Could that be a coincidence? I checked the windows execution flags, namely of lilypond.exe and lilypond-windows.exe. They are NOT LARGEADDRESSAWARE, thus limited to 2 GB of RAM on windows. Assuming the source code is large-address-aware, I modified this flag by using editbin from my Visual C installation. During the successfull compilation I noticed approx. 2.4 GB of commited RAM usage in the task manager. ArnoldTheresius -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Error-when-compiling-a-large-file-tp141107p141474.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
