[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
From: |
Keith OHara |
Subject: |
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ? |
Date: |
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:51:51 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Opera Mail/12.16 (Win32) |
On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:
Open_type_font:: and Pango_font::name_to_index() each call FT_Get_Name_Index().
Inserting print statements to trace those calls I find that FT_Get_Name_Index
is called:
7 times for each character in a Tempo
The layers of functions that result in repeated calls to the skylining code
have changed since the original skylines patch. The latest change was
author David Kastrup <address@hidden>
Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:02:48 +0000 (20:02 +0100)
Issue 3200: Make ly:make-unpure-pure-container accept a single callback
Like with fixed values, this gets duplicated for the pure value as
well, but converted into a callback taking two more arguments (which
are ignored).
This type of unpure-pure-container is not a container of two functions but
rather a single callback function, that promises to refrain from forcing
line-break decisions (to be 'pure') and that ignores the two arguments giving
the start- and end- of the line it would be on in the tentative line-breaks
under consideration.
In this case repeated calls will recompute the same value, so I see no reason
to keep the function-call pointer in place after the first use. So I suggest
we treat this case as if it were a simple lookup of a property, rather than a
'pure' lookup. http://codereview.appspot.com/42190043
This case includes the function to find skylines for Lyrics and TextScripts.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:45:45 -0800, Mike Solomon <address@hidden> wrote:
My LilyPond is not working for some reason (see previous e-mail about
debugging). Once I get it up and running, I’ll have a go at this.
Could you look at issue 3512 first ?
If we get clear on what unpure-pure is all about we might be able to simplify
things.
For example, it seems to me that the unpure-pure-container with a single
callback is not logically connected to any other unpure-pure-containers, so
should have its own tag and different behavior.
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, (continued)
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/11
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/11
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/12
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?,
Keith OHara <=
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/15