The bytecode compiler now supports cross-module inlining of functions.
As a result, for example, `empty?' and `cons?' should now perform just
as well as `null?' and `pair?'.
To avoid expanding bytecode too much, the compiler is especially
conservative about which functions it chooses as
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
The bytecode compiler now supports cross-module inlining of functions.
As a result, for example, `empty?' and `cons?' should now perform just
as well as `null?' and `pair?'.
Excellent!
To avoid expanding bytecode too
How about closing the PR, but with a message that says we would be
happy to reopen if we've closed the PR by mistake (i.e., there's still
a problem) or if more information is available?
At Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:13:23 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
In my role as bug czar, I've been trying to work
At Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:54:36 -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
(define-values (id)
(begin
'compiler-hint:cross-module-inline
proc-expr))
Yes, this pattern is a hack; I don't have a better idea for the
At Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:25:43 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Yes, that's better. I'll push a change to use a syntax property instead
of a `begin' pattern.
I won't add a macro just now, since I'm unsure of the right general
form or whether anyone will want to use it.
Since Robby is already using
The new PLaneT logo I just pushed is in the logo icon category, so it
gets pre-rendered up to 512x512. (In case anybody wants it in the future
for the web site or something.) If you want to see what it looks like,
do this:
#lang racket
(require icons)
(for*/list ([color icon-colors]
6 matches
Mail list logo
