t
>> closures use the same representation? I would have to ensure that lightweight
>> closures never flow to functions that I myself don't have the ability to
>> transform to use the right calling convention.
>>
>> Sharing is a separate optimization I am considering (Shao &a
: "dev" , "J. Ian Johnson"
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:54:58 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Experiments with closure conversion
Sorry --- I don't understand what you mean by "lightweight closures use
the same representation".
If you
s a separate optimization I am considering (Shao & Appel 2000)
> Thanks,
> -Ian
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Flatt"
> To: "J. Ian Johnson"
> Cc: "dev"
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:56:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
ay, November 21, 2012 12:56:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Experiments with closure conversion
I think I don't yet understand the question.
Are you wondering about what happens to performance of a Racket program
when you convert the program's source before g
I think I don't yet understand the question.
Are you wondering about what happens to performance of a Racket program
when you convert the program's source before giving it to Racket? And
you wonder specifically about performing lightweight closure conversion
and how Racket will treat the converted
I have a control-flow analysis of a subset of Racket that is similar to R4RS
Scheme (only with immutability in the right places). In fact, I have many - in
order to compare different analyses' effectiveness and precision, I have a
series of post-hoc analyses and program transformations I want to
6 matches
Mail list logo
