On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ryan Culpepper <r...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > [A] topologically-sorted list might actually result in worse > scheduling. It may place dependencies close together and they might get > scheduled on different places.
The current strategy (alphabetically sorting things) guarantees to put x/private near to x in the list. Wouldn't you expect almost anything to be better than that, with regards to this consideration? Speaking of which, I've suggested trying out randomly sorting the list before. Maybe I'll give that a try next. > If B depends on A, then B should be *started* only after A is *completed*. > But the current interpretation of the worklist is just the order in which to > *start* collections. Right. Robby _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
