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't gotten back to that,
but I bet it would help with your program.
We got back to that over the past week, so you could try a snapshot
version of Racket to see if errortrace now works better for your
application.
It is better, however not to an extent that would make it usable for my project.
It came down from ~10x to ~6x.
Racket 6.7 or nightly, no errortrace: 17 seconds, ~260 MB of RAM
Racket 6.7 + errortrace : 150 seconds, 2600+ MB of RAM
Racket nightly + errortrace : 118 seconds, ~1600 MB of RAM
As I wrote previously, I have no urgent need to have errortrace's
demands lowered further, since I got around with hand-made continuation marks.
However, I will surely provide any information about my program,
in case such information is needed to debug errortrace's behavior.
I will be happy to get back to errortrace in the future.
Best regards,
Dmitry
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
