[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows performance
From: |
Keith OHara |
Subject: |
Re: Windows performance |
Date: |
Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:50:47 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes:
> Martin Tarenskeen wrote Saturday, April 18, 2015 6:29 PM
>
> > Just a wild guess: did anyone on Windows try the same speed comparison
using
> > the --ps option instead of pdf output?
>
> Just done that. The conversion from ps to pdf takes only a couple of
seconds
> with either version, so it looks like GhostScript is *not* involved.
> On the Pango website I see an entry against the changes for Pango 1.28.2
>
> - Improve performance on Windows especially for non-Latin scripts
>
> and in 1.25.4
>
> - Improved win32 performance
>
> Is this the version of Pango installed in 2.19.18?
>
Until 2.19.17 LilyPond used Pango version 1.26.0
Just now with 2.19.18 LilyPond switched to Pango verison 1.28.3
( https://github.com/gperciva/gub )
The Pango patch
"[basic-win32] Increase performance of Uniscribe code"
made it into Pango 1.25.4, but it broke ligatures and was reverted
for Pango 1.26.0
It looks like some other regression _also_ broke ligatures on Windows.
The patch that probably solved our ligature/kerning bugs 2656 and 2657
"Bug 609326 - Complex script shaping failed in the FT2 backend on Windows"
made it into Pango 1.28.0
A second attempt at making use of Uniscribe faster
"Improve performance on Windows especially for non-Latin scripts"
made it into Pango 1.28.2 and could be the cause of our speedup
( https://git.gnome.org/browse/pango/log/?h=1.28 )