Strange: I do not get a segfault when running racket, only when running from DrRacket. Jos
> -----Original Message----- > From: jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com > [mailto:jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jens Axel Søgaard > Sent: jueves, 17 de julio de 2014 13:12 > To: Jos Koot > Cc: Vincent St-Amour; Eric Dobson; Matthew Flatt; Racket Users List > Subject: Re: [racket] FW: q about code for partitions > > What you describe seems more like a bug in partitions than a > documentation bug. > Do you have a small example that provoke a segfault? > > /Jens Axel > > > 2014-07-17 12:41 GMT+02:00 Jos Koot <jos.k...@gmail.com>: > > The documentation of partitions has not yet been updated, > as far as I can > > see in version 6.0.1.13--2014-07-08(7735dd0/a) [3m]. I > don't want to hurry > > up things (there may be other priorities) but when the docs > will be updated, > > I think they should include a warning against calling > function partitions > > from two concurrently running futures or threads. Reason is > the non atomic > > memoization. (let alone calling set-partitions-cache in one > process while > > another one is consulting/updating the cache) > > > > Calling partitions from two concurrent futures gives me a > segfault. Not a > > surprise. > > Up to now calling from two concurrent threads gives me > correct results, but > > slows down vvveeerrryyy much. > > I assume concurrent threads can lead to the same problems > as concurrent > > futures, though. > > If I understand places correctly, calling from concurrent > places should go > > well. Do I understand correctly? > > > > Jos > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Vincent St-Amour [mailto:stamo...@ccs.neu.edu] > >> Sent: domingo, 29 de junio de 2014 22:52 > >> To: Eric Dobson > >> Cc: Jos Koot; Matthew Flatt; Jens Axel Søgaard; Racket Users List > >> Subject: Re: [racket] FW: q about code for partitions > >> > >> Ah, that explains it. Thanks! > >> > >> Vincent > >> > >> > >> At Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:32:48 -0700, > >> Eric Dobson wrote: > >> > > >> > Vincent: exact-zero? is defined through 'make-predicate' > which uses > >> > contract machinery to generate the function. I filed a > >> couple of bugs > >> > tracking some of the slowness issues. There is no `contract` form > >> > though so I doubt that the coach will find it. > >> > > >> > > >> http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view%20audit-trail&data > > base=default&pr=14610 > >> > > >> http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view%20audit-trail&data > > base=default&pr=14611 > >> > > >> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Jos Koot > >> <jos.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > Great work, Jens. I am glad my approach as been adopted > >> (and much improved > >> > > without deviating from the original idea of simpler > >> recurrence). When can we > >> > > expect it in the next nightly build? > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, Jos > >> > > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> From: jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com > >> > >> [mailto:jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jens > >> Axel Søgaard > >> > >> Sent: domingo, 29 de junio de 2014 12:48 > >> > >> To: Matthew Flatt > >> > >> Cc: Jos Koot; Racket Users List > >> > >> Subject: Re: [racket] FW: q about code for partitions > >> > >> > >> > >> I have made a new vector version using zero? instead of > >> exact-zero?. > >> > >> > >> > >> To give users a chance to remove the cache after doing > >> > >> partitions calculations, > >> > >> I have added set-partitions-cache. > >> > >> > >> > >> Code: > >> > >> > >> > >> https://github.com/soegaard/racket/blob/patch-14/pkgs/math-pkg > >> > > s/math-lib/math/private/number-theory/partitions.rkt > >> > >> > >> > >> Discussion: > >> > >> https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/697 > >> > >> > >> > >> /Jens Axel > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-06-29 12:44 GMT+02:00 Jens Axel Søgaard > >> <jensa...@soegaard.net>: > >> > >> > 2014-06-29 8:47 GMT+02:00 Matthew Flatt > <mfl...@cs.utah.edu>: > >> > >> >> It looks like "partitions2.rkt" ends up calling a > >> contract-wrapped > >> > >> >> variant of `exact-zero?`. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > That explains why Eric saw an improvement, when the used #f > >> > >> instead of > >> > >> > 0 as the not-cached-yet value. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > /Jens Axel > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Jens Axel Søgaard > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ____________________ > >> > > Racket Users list: > >> > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >> > > >> > ____________________ > >> > Racket Users list: > >> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > > -- > -- > Jens Axel Søgaard ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
