On Sun 05 Mar 2017 15:01, 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 Oh, that's interesting. IME the only thing that is slower on 2.2 compared to 2.0 is the compiler; everything else is significantly faster. Could it be that Lilypond is spending time compiling things somehow? Perhaps via scm_load without disabling autocompilation or something? Guessing at this point tho. But that's getting ahead of myself -- do you have a document that exhibits a similar performance series (1.8 < 2.0 < 2.2) but which doesn't take so long to run? That can make perf investigation a bit more tractable :) Andy
