On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> If you're calling from Racket to TR then you have the contract >> checking and probably the floats flowing thru there need boxing. > > If I understand you correctly, the contract checking would just be "is this a > float?" which I imagine wouldn't require additional memory. Certainly the > return value would have to be boxed, and that would definitely be eight > bytes, I'm guessing.
There's also the allocation overhead involved in wrapping the function, plus probably lots of other places where unboxing is inhibited. >> >> Can you put the loop itself into TR? > > Sadly, no; the loops themselves are written by students. Or, more > specifically, written by students as a "network" form that expands into a > function that's called in a loop. I think that expanding into TR would be > incredibly hard to get right. I'm not sure why this would be. Is the code students write unrestricted? -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
