Why LuaHBTeX 1.24 is slower than 1.22?
Hello I installed TL pretest 2026 a tried to run LuaHBTeX 2.24 with OpTeX macros. I noticed, that LuaHBTeX 2.24 (TeX live 2026) is significantly slower than LuaHBTeX 2.22 (TeX live 2025). Why? For example time optex optex-doc does: This is LuaHBTeX, Version 1.24.0 (TeX Live 2026) restricted system commands enabled. (/home/olsak/texmf/tex/optex/doc/optex-doc.tex ... real 0m17.367s user 0m16.836s sys 0m0.429s but time optex optex-doc with TL 2025 does: This is LuaHBTeX, Version 1.22.0 (TeX Live 2025) restricted system commands enabled. (/home/olsak/texmf/tex/optex/doc/optex-doc.tex ... real 0m9.676s user 0m9.205s sys 0m0.361s Regards Petr Olsak
Hi Petr, On Sun, 2026-02-15 at 10:58 +0100, Petr Olsak wrote:
I installed TL pretest 2026 a tried to run LuaHBTeX 2.24 with OpTeX macros. I noticed, that LuaHBTeX 2.24 (TeX live 2026) is significantly slower than LuaHBTeX 2.22 (TeX live 2025). Why?
Without looking into this at all, this reminds me of a similar issue from 2023: https://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2023-August/007864.html Recompiling fixed the problem back then: https://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2023-September/007879.html If you recompile LuaHBTeX from source with "-O2" or "-O3" and no "-g" arguments, does the problem go away? Thanks, -- Max
I am seeing something similar with the linux build (on wsl)
doing 4 or 5 runs so times stabilize
I get for
time lualatex ltnews
in 2026 and 2025
-
real 0m3.980s user 0m3.890s sys 0m0.211s
-
real 0m2.710s user 0m2.575s sys 0m0.211s
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 at 10:37, Max Chernoff
Hi Petr,
On Sun, 2026-02-15 at 10:58 +0100, Petr Olsak wrote:
I installed TL pretest 2026 a tried to run LuaHBTeX 2.24 with OpTeX macros. I noticed, that LuaHBTeX 2.24 (TeX live 2026) is significantly slower than LuaHBTeX 2.22 (TeX live 2025). Why?
Without looking into this at all, this reminds me of a similar issue from 2023:
https://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2023-August/007864.html
Recompiling fixed the problem back then:
https://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2023-September/007879.html
If you recompile LuaHBTeX from source with "-O2" or "-O3" and no "-g" arguments, does the problem go away?
Thanks, -- Max _______________________________________________ dev-luatex mailing list -- dev-luatex@ntg.nl To unsubscribe send an email to dev-luatex-leave@ntg.nl
On windows it looks ok, the speed is similar or a bit faster on the documents I tried. -- Ulrike Fischer http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/
Hello, I downloaded the luahbtex binary(A) from ConTeXt Bulid farm https://build.contextgarden.net/#/builders/40/builds/144 and I compared it with the binary(B) from TeXlive pretest 2026. The result: the binary(A) is OK, the processing time is comparable with luahbtex from TeXlive 2025. The biary(B) is slower (almost two times) as I reported before. Applying file command to binary(A): luahbtex: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, BuildID[sha1]=cc9bfc6319593228d3f0cf7142c796c3d55b3746, for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, stripped Applyinf file command to binary(B) luahbtex: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, BuildID[sha1]=6f438fa29895e28d3a33aa6b9d61cd97a125c6d4, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped ls -lh luahbtex (binary(A)) -rwxr-xr-x 1 olsak olsak 9.1M Feb 15 14:29 luahbtex ls -lh luahbtex (binary(B)) -rwxr-xr-x 1 olsak olsak 15M Feb 11 22:49 luahbtex Note: 9MB versus 15MB. It seems that the problem is related to settings of compilation environment when a binary is built. So, it is not your problem but problem of TeXlive. On the other hand, we should report this problem to TeXlive because binaries from TeXlive are (probably) most used among TeX users. Petr O. On 2/15/26 13:30, Petr Olsak wrote:
Sorry, I didn't specify my desktop environment. I am using binary from x86_64-linux from TeXlive.
Petr
On 2/15/26 12:25, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
On windows it looks ok, the speed is similar or a bit faster on the documents I tried.
_______________________________________________ dev-luatex mailing list -- dev-luatex@ntg.nl To unsubscribe send an email to dev-luatex-leave@ntg.nl
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 at 13:30, Petr Olsak
Sorry, I didn't specify my desktop environment. I am using binary from x86_64-linux from TeXlive.
For x86-64 I have: LuaHBTex 1.24.0 self-compiled: CFLAGS="-march=native -O2": User time (seconds): 9.50 Size: 10 073 472 bytes CFLAGS="-march=native -O3": User time (seconds): 9.02 Size: 11 085 184 LuaHBTeX 1.22.0 TeXLive 2025 9957720 bytes: User time (seconds): 10.33 Size: 9 957 720 bytes LuaHBTex 1.24.0 TeXLive 2026 pretest: User time (seconds): 17.07 Size: 15 120 824 bytes There is a marked difference on pages 44, which then carries over to the rest of the document. -- luigi
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 at 11:04, Petr Olsak
Hello
I installed TL pretest 2026 a tried to run LuaHBTeX 2.24 with OpTeX macros. I noticed, that LuaHBTeX 2.24 (TeX live 2026) is significantly slower than LuaHBTeX 2.22 (TeX live 2025). Why?
For example time optex optex-doc does:
This is LuaHBTeX, Version 1.24.0 (TeX Live 2026) restricted system commands enabled. (/home/olsak/texmf/tex/optex/doc/optex-doc.tex ...
real 0m17.367s user 0m16.836s sys 0m0.429s
but time optex optex-doc with TL 2025 does:
This is LuaHBTeX, Version 1.22.0 (TeX Live 2025) restricted system commands enabled. (/home/olsak/texmf/tex/optex/doc/optex-doc.tex ...
real 0m9.676s user 0m9.205s sys 0m0.361s
hm, checking it now. -- luigi
participants (5)
-
David Carlisle -
luigi scarso -
Max Chernoff -
Petr Olsak -
Ulrike Fischer