Re: scheme night-mare...

[Arno Waschk]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:27:53 +0200, Arno Waschk <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:53:21 +0200, Joe Neeman <address@hidden>  
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Neil Puttock <address@hidden>  
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Joe,
> > >
> > > On 13 July 2010 02:18, Joe Neeman <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does the attached patch help? For me, it reduces dramatically the
> > > > number of times that combine_pure_heights (and also ly_scm2interval)
> > > > is called, but it has very little effect on lilypond's overall  
> > > running
> > > > time (for the optimized build, at least).
> > >
> > > I've just tested this patch (after removing the bits which prevented
> > > it from applying; they look like they belong to a fix for issue 1152.
> > > :)  It has a dramatic effect in several cases: on one 26 page score
> > > it's halved the compilation time to just over a minute.
> >
> > Ok, it seems like I should be benchmarking with bigger files; I was just
> > trying mozart-hrn-3 :) I'll clean up the patch a bit a post it on  
> > rietveld.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joe
>
> Hi, with Joe's patch i got with my actual project's big score close to  
> 25% reduction on lilypond run time, which is very nice!
> After git pull origin (onto Joe's patch) i got:
>
>
> Zeilenumbrüche werden berechnet...terminate called after throwing an  
> instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
>    what():  std::bad_alloc
> Aborted
>
> Can somebody help me?
>
> Thanks, Arno

seems this is something which is new (i tried as well 2.13.26).
it just meens that the swap partition is full...

looks my score is too long for lilypond, or too many accidentals?

the following:


\version "2.13.28"
\layout { ragged-right = ##t }

\relative c' {
        \key a \major
\repeat unfold 1000 {
        f8 g f g fis gis a a
        f8 g f g fis gis a a
%\pageBreak
        f8 g f g fis gis a a
        f8 g f g fis gis a a}
c r r4 r2
}


dies in Accidental_placement::get_relevant_accidentals

where etls.size is reported as 16000 in the loop. On my machine at  
i~13000, 4 GB memory, 2 GB swap space...

but was i actually had wanted to try was the question whether the layout  
goes quicker with manual page breaks (since i thought that would lead to  
lily only be looking for layout issues within two manual pagebreaks ...!?)  
which is does not seem to.
playing with the repeat factor shows nice quadratic time growth, and  
hardly a difference whether the \pageBreak is commented out or not...

Yours, Arno