I tried this out, by adding 1.0 as the third argument in `in-range` in all cases. The performance in Racket BC increased, but there's still no parallelism. In Racket CS, it appears to have made things slower, so I need to investigate more.
Sam On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > At Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:24:37 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > - on Racket BC, operations like `+` do indeed block > > ... which mixing, say, fixnum and flonum arguments, but not when > operating on all fixnums or all flonums. > > In this case, it may be the `in-range` with flonum bounds that results > in `+` with fixnum 1 and a flonum. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2BYoCf8O2aO90peZSSVFYybehgKg-iLqgtQcZBA0DU3WWw%40mail.gmail.com.