2017-03-05 15:09 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Here some timing values >> >> (1) >> lilypond-2.19.52 using guile 1.8.7 >> (I would have prefered to build lilypond with a guile-1.8.8 build from >> the guile-repository. Though my try to build it from the >> branch_release-1-8 failed. Instead attempting to fix it, I then used a >> released lilypond-version) >> >> real 8m16.191s >> user 6m39.864s >> sys 0m10.860s >> >> (2) >> guile-2.0.14 build from guile-git-repository, branch >> remotes/origin/stable-2.0 >> lilypond-2.19.56, build from local branch dev/guile-v2.2-work >> >> real 34m11.762s >> user 45m11.316s >> sys 0m5.604s >> >> (3) >> guile-2.1.7 build from guile-git-repository, branch master >> (I've got this warning: >> configure: WARNING: *** GNU Readline is too old on your system. >> configure: WARNING: *** You need readline version 2.1 or later. >> No idea whether this may have an impact on lilyponds compiling-time >> I'll have to test.) >> lilypond-2.19.56, build from local branch dev/guile-v2.2-work >> >> real 67m29.132s >> user 93m14.812s >> sys 0m7.332s > > Same compilation options?
Yep. To get comparable results I always did exactly the same, for building the guile-versions as well as for building lilypond. Doing all tests with a fresh restarted computer. Cheers, Harm > This looks like a surprisingly serious > regression compared to 2.0. > > -- > David Kastrup
