Does run-analysis have the form (lambda () actually-run-analysis)?
Because if not, that's the problem.
Carl Eastlund
--
WARNING! Poorly-typed cell phone email precedes.
On Sep 9, 2013 11:55 AM, J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I'm running my analysis benchmarks in the context of
I changed it to (call-with-limits (* 30 60) 2048 (lambda () run-analysis))
for a sanity check, which I thought with-limits was just a macro for. Same
problem. The execution takes at least 20 seconds to get to 15GiB, so it can't
be just that GC isn't running in order for the custodian to notice
Argh, sorry, I read the docs for the wrong one, sorry for the misleading
response.
Carl Eastlund
--
WARNING! Poorly-typed cell phone email precedes.
On Sep 9, 2013 12:16 PM, J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I changed it to (call-with-limits (* 30 60) 2048 (lambda ()
run-analysis)) for
The framework will, sometimes do stuff that queues callbacks and, depending
on how you've set up other things, the code running there might escape from
the limit. Did you try putting the eventspace under the limit too?
Robby
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:54 AM, J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice, and thanks for the explanation. Just to make sure I get it: does this
mean fully expanded TR modules are smaller?
Yes.
Does it reduce the number of generated contracts?
No.
On 09/08/2013 12:24 PM, Sam
I don't know if I understand. It sounds like you want to the limit the
total memory allocated during the dynamic extent of the function
called. I don't know of functionality that does that.
The limit is on the total amount of memory reachable only from within
the function. Without knowing
I'm running my analysis benchmarks in the context of (with-limits (* 30 60)
2048 run-analysis), and it's been good at killing the process when the run
should time out, but now I have an instantiation of the framework that just
gobbles up 15GiB of memory without getting killed. What might be
I assumed that when you wrote the framework you were referring to the
library you get by (require framework), but perhaps you weren't?
Robby
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:29 PM, J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I don't use the gui framework at all. This is all just pounding on global
Nice, and thanks for the explanation. Just to make sure I get it: does
this mean fully expanded TR modules are smaller?
Does it reduce the number of generated contracts?
On 09/08/2013 12:24 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
Typed Racket has to expand into code that registers the type of each
I don't use the gui framework at all. This is all just pounding on global
hash-tables and vectors. Or are you talking about the sandbox queuing up
callbacks?
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu
To: J. Ian Johnson i...@ccs.neu.edu
Cc: dev
Ah, that would probably be the problem. Without having to modify too much code,
would the proper way to call a function entirely within the sandbox be to use
dynamic-require in the thunk, rather than require in the module using
call-with-limits?
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: David
Just to make sure, is the memory being allocated reachable from outside
the sandbox?
http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/ismm04-addendum.txt
On 09/09/2013 01:29 PM, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
I don't use the gui framework at all. This is all just pounding on global
hash-tables and vectors. Or
I have ideas to remove about the contracts from TR code, but currently
that is only prototyped.
Example:
#lang typed/racket
(provide f)
(: f (Number - Number))
(define (f x) x)
Currently f is exported with the contract (number? . - . number?),
but this can be safely reduced to (number . - .
FWIW, this is something that's been studied in small calculi in the
literature. Nothing that will have to get thru all of the little details
that you have to get right to make it work in a real language design like
TR, but maybe you'll find some useful ways to look at the problem. (Mostly
the
Hello devs,
This week, at least 2 students destroyed the File - Install Package
feature of DrRacket on their machines. The students copied a URL into
the Package Source field several times, resulting in this error.
Appearently, the only way to solve this problem is to delete
racket-prefs.rktd.
Not only did our own Sam write about this, but he thought that he changed
Typed Racket to do this. Am I missing something here, or are you describing
more optimization than we do already or ...?
Sam
On Sep 9, 2013 8:33 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
FWIW, this is something
When did you add this? Last time I checked (June-ish) this was not
added. Can you point to the code that does it?
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
sa...@cs.indiana.edu wrote:
Not only did our own Sam write about this, but he thought that he changed
Typed Racket to do this. Am
Our own Sam: one step ahead. :)
Robby
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@cs.indiana.eduwrote:
Not only did our own Sam write about this, but he thought that he changed
Typed Racket to do this. Am I missing something here, or are you describing
more optimization than
The Lord of heaven and earth bless your fine bug reporting skills with many
and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched you with many
singular and extraordinary graces, so you may be the wonder of the world in
this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of that
I implemented what I thought would do this a long time ago, so if it isn't
there then I must be misremembering or things have changed in the code to
make it not happen.
Sam
On Sep 9, 2013 9:13 PM, Eric Dobson eric.n.dob...@gmail.com wrote:
When did you add this? Last time I checked (June-ish)
20 matches
Mail list logo
