suzanne.soy/racket
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

clarify that futures don't run in parallel with errortrace

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Robby Findler 2016-12-21 12:34:59 -06:00
parent 498f1795db
commit 02a267fdb2
2 changed files with 6 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/futures.scrbl
View File

@ -13,7 +13,9 @@ The @racketmodname[racket/future] library provides support for
performance improvement through parallelism with @deftech{futures} and the @racket[future]
and @racket[touch] functions. The level of parallelism available from
those constructs, however, is limited by several factors, and the
current implementation is best suited to numerical tasks.
current implementation is best suited to numerical tasks. The caveats
in @secref["DrRacket-perf"] also apply to futures; notably,
the debugging instrumentation currently defeats futures.
@margin-note{Other functions, such as @racket[thread], support the
creation of reliably concurrent tasks. However, threads never run truly

4
pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/guide/performance.scrbl
View File

@ -28,7 +28,9 @@ and memory performance of Racket code.
@section[#:tag "DrRacket-perf"]{Performance in DrRacket}
By default, DrRacket instruments programs for debugging, and
debugging instrumentation can significantly degrade performance for
debugging instrumentation (provided by the
@other-doc['(lib "errortrace/scribblings/errortrace.scrbl")]
library) can significantly degrade performance for
some programs. Even when debugging is disabled through the
@onscreen{Choose Language...} dialog's @onscreen{Show Details} panel,
the @onscreen{Preserve stacktrace} checkbox is clicked by default,