[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU Guile 2.1.7 released (beta)
From: |
Thomas Morley |
Subject: |
Re: GNU Guile 2.1.7 released (beta) |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Mar 2017 17:54:29 +0100 |
Hi Andy,
sorry for the late reply.
My regular job eats too much time ....
2017-02-28 9:31 GMT+01:00 Andy Wingo <address@hidden>:
> On Tue 28 Feb 2017 00:00, Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The main problems/TODOs are listed here (same for guile-2.0.13 and 2.1.7):
>> https://ao2.it/tmp/lilypond-guile2/TODO
>> With no warranty for completeness.
>>
>> Let me pick some of them:
>> (1)
>> lilypond filename_名字.ly
>> returns
>> fatal error: failed files: "filename_??????.ly"
>
> Interesting, I would have thought that there would be a difference
> between 2.0.13 and 2.1.7 due to GUILE_INSTALL_LOCALE; I assume you are
> in a UTF-8 locale and that file name is UTF-8?
~$ locale
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
LANGUAGE=en
LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_NUMERIC=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_TIME=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_MONETARY=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_PAPER=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_NAME=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_ADDRESS=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_TELEPHONE=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_MEASUREMENT=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_IDENTIFICATION=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_ALL=
>
>> (2)
>> Floating point numbers are different in some decimal digits.
>> Possible impact on spacing in a regression-test for utf-8.
>
> If you have more details on the floating-point issue, they are very
> welcome :)
Not really my topic.
Though first reported here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2016-11/msg00156.html
>
>> (3)
>> Most imortant for users:
>> LilyPond slowed down dramatically. Today I tested a huge file:
>>
>> lilypond 2.19.52 with guile-1.8
>>
>> real 9m8.229s
>> user 6m41.156s
>> sys 0m11.940s
>>
>> lilypond 2.19.56 with guile-2.1.7
>>
>> real 48m45.225s
>> user 65m43.252s
>> sys 0m6.320s
>
> Do you have Guile 2.0 numbers as well?
>
> I understand that Lilypond uses the "local-eval" facility a lot for
> embedded Scheme. This is a facility that was indeed faster in 1.8. I
> would expect that 2.1.7 would be faster than 2.0, if that were the case,
> as 2.1.7's evaluator is faster. Hard to say, though. That interface
> does not get a lot of speed attention. We could take a look and see
> what we can do. I guess we need some profiling first.
Here some findings:
(1)
released lilypond-2.19.52 with guile-1.8.7
real 8m16.191s
user 6m39.864s
sys 0m10.860s
(2)
lilypond with guile-2.0.14 build from guile-git-repository, branch
remotes/origin/stable-2.0
real 34m11.762s
user 45m11.316s
sys 0m5.604s
(3)
lilypond with guile-2.1.7 build from guile-git-repository, branch master
real 67m29.132s
user 93m14.812s
sys 0m7.332s
More info in my reply to Arne on the user-list:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2017-03/msg00042.html
> Can you run lilypond under callgrind under 1.8 and 2.1.7 and attach the
> generated callgrind.out.PID for each run? Run like this:
>
> valgrind --tool=callgrind --num-callers=20 lilypond foo.ly
Running valgrind on the same .ly-file as for my tests above is insane,
I aborted it after several (far too many) hours.
Let me try to find some ly-code/file of medium size to do so.
Thanks,
Harm
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy