Oh, and just in case, I'm pretty sure this is a 64 bit build (I forget the official way to check, but I think that this counts)
> (fixnum? (expt 2 40)) #t Robby On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> At Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:21:24 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: >>> Last I heard, Eli was saying that there was something seriously wrong >>> with 'raco setup' on two cores. Did that ever get resolved? >> >> Commits 012ef60cd545ba and 534886dbe4b6ad (yesterday) were in response >> and improved things on my machine, so it's probably worth checking again. >> > > Here's what I get. Looks like we see improvements to 3 or so places > and then don't anymore. But there also doesn't seem to be any bad > behavior in there, at least for me (on dual quad-core 2.8 ghz xeon > processors). > > time raco setup -Dj 1 > [...] > real 17m26.143s > user 14m19.715s > sys 2m39.913s > > > time raco setup -Dj 2 > [...] > real 9m16.022s > user 13m14.917s > sys 3m49.053s > > > time raco setup -Dj 3 > [...] > real 7m57.370s > user 13m50.130s > sys 5m15.396s > > time raco setup -Dj 4 > [...] > real 7m19.843s > user 14m12.368s > sys 6m45.303s > > > time raco setup -Dj 5 > [...] > real 7m12.761s > user 14m43.506s > sys 8m47.768s > > > time raco setup -Dj 6 > [...] > real 7m16.931s > user 15m9.667s > sys 10m46.150s > > time raco setup -Dj 7 > [...] > real 7m29.394s > user 15m30.409s > sys 12m44.665s > > time raco setup -Dj 8 > [...] > real 7m29.394s > user 15m30.409s > sys 12m44.665s > > Robby _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
