Re: CPU usage and barchecks

[Antonio Gervasoni]

David wrote:

> No.  Bar checks don't do any accounting of their own, they just check an 
> existing counter for being on a bar boundary at a particular point of 
> processing.  I doubt that you would notice a significant difference if 
> you had 100 bar checks every bar.

Thanks! Good to know!

James wrote:

> This is normal for any large and complex job of compiling from source
> code. The 
> compiler is supposed to read the code and convert it to something else
> (another 
> kind of code, or here, PDF) as fast as possible. Often that means maxing
> out at 
> least one CPU core for as long as the job is running.

Yes, I already knew this but still wanted to know if there was anything I
could do to make it easy for Lilypond, so compiling wouldn't take more than
what is necessary. I've decided to run Lilypond in my old PC which has
Ubuntu installed. Funny thing is that although it is much older than the
mac, with a less powerful CPU, it compiles the score faster! Of course, the
load in the processor is the same but I can't notice it because there's no
increase in the fan speed.

> It's inherent in the write-compile-edit-recompile workflow. This
> architecture 
> gives lilypond some distinct advantages in the marketplace, but it does
> have the 
> disadvantage that even a small change requires redoing all of the
> typesetting 
> work from scratch.

True! I wonder if a future version of Lilypond would be able to compile only
the parts that change. Maybe with some kind of version control management
incorporated into the software. Don't know why it wasn't included from the
beginning but guess it's because it's not as easy as it sounds. LOL

Regards,

Antonio



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/CPU-usage-and-barchecks-tp141433p141502.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.