rent" call (as Matthew
> might call it) and will not in-line a "higher-order call" as I might
> refer to your choice of style.
>
> Take a look and experiment. It's NOT a profiler. I doesn't involve
> decompilation or looking at the expansion. It's pl
n coach in DrRacket (in the "view" menu) to see what
> optimizations Racket applies to your code.
>
> For your program, the coach confirms Matthew's diagnosis that inlining
> is what makes `fib2` faster.
>
> Vincent
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:42:03 -0
165580141
> (time (fib1 0 40))
cpu time: 4535 real time: 4532 gc time: 0
165580141
> (time (fib2 0 40))
cpu time: 3027 real time: 3025 gc time: 0
165580141
>
It looks like one of the functions is 1.5 times faster than the other (in the i
== 0 case). Any ideas as to why?
Thanks,
--Jerry Jac
well known?
Thanks,
--Jerry Jackson
--
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:/
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-6, Justin Zamora wrote:
> Why not use streams? http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/streams.html
>
> Justin
>
> On Apr 9, 2015 11:22 AM, "Jerry Jackson" wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I'm building a langu
und or
2) Is there a reason it's a really bad idea or
3) Was it just left out because nobody so far needed it?
Thanks for any help,
--Jerry Jackson
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
6 matches
Mail list logo
