On 14-3-2011 8:52, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
PS: You would get the same kind of behaviour in MKII (however if MKII
only runs twice and if there is a speed factor of 1.5, you could
declare MKII being three times faster which does make some
difference when compilation time is long).
depends on the
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Hans Hagen pra...@wxs.nl wrote:
On 14-3-2011 8:52, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
PS: You would get the same kind of behaviour in MKII (however if MKII
only runs twice and if there is a speed factor of 1.5, you could
declare MKII being three times faster which does
On 16-3-2011 5:52, luigi scarso wrote:
Maybe luajit can improve things considerably.
i wonder ... we don't do that many calculations
light userdata might help some (is on the agenda to be looke dinto)
Hans
-
Am 2011-03-14 um 20:52 schrieb Mojca Miklavec:
PPS (not to be taken (too) seriously): But I wouldn't be surprized if,
say, two years from now you would try to repeat the experiment just to
find out that MKIV became faster. (Unlikely to happen, but imaging
Taco coming to idea to use all the four
I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times as
slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible, or should there be
something else that is responsible for this?
--
Cecil Westerhof
___
Am 14.03.2011 um 11:23 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times as
slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,
Yes, MkIV is slower.
or should there be something else that is responsible for this?
No, for simple document
2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster schuster.wolfg...@googlemail.com
I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times
as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,
Yes, MkIV is slower.
Okay, thanks. I also updated my system. So that was the other possibility.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster schuster.wolfg...@googlemail.com
I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times
as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible,
Yes, MkIV is slower.
Okay, thanks. I also updated my
On Monday 14 March 2011 14:02:18 Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster schuster.wolfg...@googlemail.com
I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2
times
as slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this
2011/3/14 Alan BRASLAU alan.bras...@cea.fr
On Monday 14 March 2011 14:02:18 Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
2011/3/14 Wolfgang Schuster schuster.wolfg...@googlemail.com
I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2
times
On 2011-03-14 11:23:55, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
I installed the minimals and use MKIV. It seems that it is 1,5 to 2 times as
slow as the MKII I used in texlive. Is this possible, or should there be
something else that is responsible for this?
Hi Cecil,
regarding luatex/mkiv performance there
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 14:47, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
Both did not work for me. But removing --purgeall from my script reduced the
time from 30 seconds to 10.
When you don't use --purgeall, ConTeXt calculates different things
(for example table of contents, cross-references etc.) and stores
You can't have it Good, Cheap, and Fast all at once ;)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Mojca Miklavec
mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 14:47, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
Both did not work for me. But removing --purgeall from my script reduced
the
time from 30
13 matches
Mail list logo
