On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
9 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
Speaking of which, I've suggested trying out randomly sorting the
list before. Maybe I'll give that a try next.
The original reason to use an alphabetical order is to get
deterministic
On Feb 28, 2012, at 7:45 AM, ry...@racket-lang.org wrote:
This change cuts real time of raco setup -D almost in half
| on a 4-core machine
Nice. Now I need two more cores.
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 7:45 AM, ry...@racket-lang.org wrote:
This change cuts real time of raco setup -D almost in half
| on a 4-core machine
Nice. Now I need two more cores.
It probably speeds up a 2 core
At Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:21:24 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
Last I heard, Eli was saying that there was something seriously wrong
with 'raco setup' on two cores. Did that ever get resolved?
Commits 012ef60cd545ba and 534886dbe4b6ad (yesterday) were in response
and improved things on my machine, so
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:21:24 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
Last I heard, Eli was saying that there was something seriously wrong
with 'raco setup' on two cores. Did that ever get resolved?
Commits 012ef60cd545ba and
Oh, and just in case, I'm pretty sure this is a 64 bit build (I forget
the official way to check, but I think that this counts)
(fixnum? (expt 2 40))
#t
Robby
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Matthew Flatt
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
On my machine before the change, raco setup -D took 8m13s real, 13m52s
user; after the change, it takes 4m0s real, 9m3s user.
I guess you have a faster machine than I do. (Are you running the 64
bit build or 32?)
FWIW, the
On 02/28/2012 01:56 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ryan Culpepperr...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
On my machine before the change, raco setup -D took 8m13s real, 13m52s
user; after the change, it takes 4m0s real, 9m3s user.
I guess you have a faster machine than I do. (Are
On 02/28/2012 01:56 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ryan Culpepperr...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
On my machine before the change, raco setup -D took 8m13s real, 13m52s
user; after the change, it takes 4m0s real, 9m3s user.
I guess you have a faster machine than I do. (Are
On 02/28/2012 02:45 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ryan Culpepperr...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
[A] topologically-sorted list might actually result in worse
scheduling. It may place dependencies close together and they might get
scheduled on different places.
The current
On 02/28/2012 03:02 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Ryan Culpepperr...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
The list seems to include only top-level collections: x/private isn't on the
list. I guess it's only discovered once setup starts compiling x. In any
case, x/private always seems
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:21:24 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
Last I heard, Eli was saying that there was something seriously
wrong with 'raco setup' on two cores. Did that ever get resolved?
Commits 012ef60cd545ba and 534886dbe4b6ad (yesterday) were in
response
9 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
Speaking of which, I've suggested trying out randomly sorting the
list before. Maybe I'll give that a try next.
The original reason to use an alphabetical order is to get
deterministic buidls, otherwise debugging problems can be impossible.
--
13 matches
Mail list logo
