When a tree marshaled to bytecode form has many shared pieces,
the unmarshaling process can lose track of the sharing in one
place and traverse too much of the structure as pieces are
loaded.
This program runs about 10x faster than it did before this commit, but
seems to still be about 100x slower than the version where you change
an-s to just be (s).
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base racket/generic)
(define-generics id [m id x])
(struct s () #:methods gen:id [(define (m g x) x)])
(define an-s
(contract (id/c [m (-> any/c integer? integer?)])
(s)
'pos 'neg))
(time
(for ([x (in-range 100000)])
(m an-s 2)))
rest of the contract system, creating and using a slightly
more legitmate blame record and calling into the late-neg
projections instead of using `contract`
turns out to be a predicate.
In that case, just call it instead of creating all of the extra junk
that would normally be created by coercing the predicate to a contract
and invoking it
Use a job object to ensure that subprocesses that are meant
to be killed by the current custodian are reliably terminated
if Racket exits for any reason.
Although `procedure-specialize` should be useful in places where
inlining does not apply, allowing inlining and related optimizations
through it, anyway.
- use chaperone-hash-set for set/c when the contract allows only hash-sets
- add a #:lazy flag to allow explicit choice of when to use laziness
(but have a backwards-compatible default that, roughly, eschews laziness
only when the resulting contract would be flat)
Specifically, remove reliance on procedure-closure-contents-eq? to
tell when a pending check is stronger in favor of usint
contract-stronger?
Also, tighten up the specification of contract-stronger? to require
that any contract is stronger than itself
With this commit, this program gets about 10% slower:
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(define f
(contract
(-> any/c integer?)
(λ (x) (if (zero? x)
0
(f (- x 1))))
'pos 'neg))
(time (f 2000000))
becuase the checking is doing work more explicitly now but because the
checking in more general, it identifies the redundant checking in this
program
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(define f
(contract
(-> any/c integer?)
(contract
(-> any/c integer?)
(λ (x) (if (zero? x)
0
(f (- x 1))))
'pos 'neg)
'pos 'neg))
(time (f 200000))
which makes it run about 13x faster than it did before
I'm not sure if this is a win overall, since the checking can be more
significant in the case of "near misses". For example, with this
program, where neither the new nor the old checking detects the
redundancy is about 40% slower after this commit than it was before:
#lang racket/base
(require racket/contract/base)
(define f
(contract
(-> any/c (<=/c 0))
(contract
(-> any/c (>=/c 0))
(λ (x) (if (zero? x)
0
(f (- x 1))))
'pos 'neg)
'pos 'neg))
(time (f 50000))
(The redundancy isn't detected here because the contract system only
looks at the first pending contract check.)
Overall, despite the fact that it slows down some programs and speeds
up others, my main thought is that it is worth doing because it
eliminates a (painful) reliance on procedure-closure-contents-eq? that
inhibits other approaches to optimizing these contracts we might try.
