"ArnoldTheresius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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
That would obviously mean a change to the Windows-version compiler on GUB.
I assume it's gcc but haven't checked. Any thoughts on how to proceed with
this?
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
