Matthew,
On 12/10/2016 06:22 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:19:03 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
There's a pending issue of making sure that `for` loops or other things
are not needlessly instrumented, since they're only part of the
expansion instead of the original code. We haven'
At Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:19:03 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> There's a pending issue of making sure that `for` loops or other things
> are not needlessly instrumented, since they're only part of the
> expansion instead of the original code. We haven't gotten back to that,
> but I bet it would help wit
Robby,
On 12/06/2016 07:20 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I'm not sure if it helps, but errortrace fully expands your program
and then traverses that and adds continuation marks (this is called
"annotation" in the errortrace docs). There may be a bug in this
process that causes information to be lost,
I'm not sure if it helps, but errortrace fully expands your program
and then traverses that and adds continuation marks (this is called
"annotation" in the errortrace docs). There may be a bug in this
process that causes information to be lost, I suppose, but the problem
with the dynamically requir
I guess, under these circumstances, I should
try and make my own continuation marks in the parser/compiler.
I managed to to that. I can not say that it is a beautiful implementation, but
it works.
For "a+b", instead of a syntax object of '(plus a b),
the parser now generates a syntax object
I just tried that: unfortunately, this stack trace does not seem to
be able to cross the boundary of dynamically required module.
What I see in (continuation-mark-set->context (current-continuation-marks))
are just lines in the "main" Racket module, and no lines that
belong to the non-sexp mo
Matthew,
Question 1: A factor of 10 is on the high side, but not unusual at the
moment.
There's a pending issue of making sure that `for` loops or other things
are not needlessly instrumented, since they're only part of the
expansion instead of the original code. We haven't gotten back to that
Question 1: A factor of 10 is on the high side, but not unusual at the
moment.
There's a pending issue of making sure that `for` loops or other things
are not needlessly instrumented, since they're only part of the
expansion instead of the original code. We haven't gotten back to that,
but I bet i
Hello,
I have a program that takes 17 seconds and ~260 MB of memory.
If I use errortrace on it, the numbers grow about tenfold: 150 seconds and
2600+ MB.
That is just compilation; in the runtime the program does almost nothing and
terminates quickly.
I know little about how errortrace works an
9 matches
Mail list logo
