https://github.com/damien-mattei/library-FunctProg/blob/master/guile/logiki%2B.scm#L1674
i commited the current version of code here with all files but it is huge.... :-/ On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:20 PM Damien Mattei <damien.mat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mutex? i do not think code has situation where dead lock could happen, it > is a code about minimalising logic expressions, it uses minterms , minterms > set is a set of minterms :like this: > > example: > ((1 1 0) (1 1 1)) will be unified : (1 1 x) > because 0 and 1 are replaced by x > the minterms-set could have thousands of pair (mathematic not lisp) > minterms to unify > if there is more than one x as result there is no need to continue so i > escape with a continuation: > > minterms-set = > { > ((1 0 1 0) (1 1 1 0)) > ((1 0 1 0) (1 1 0 1)) > ((1 0 1 0) (1 0 1 1)) > ((1 0 1 0) (0 1 1 1)) > ((0 1 1 0) (1 1 1 0)) > ((0 1 1 0) (1 1 0 1)) > ((0 1 1 0) (1 0 1 1)) > ((0 1 1 0) (0 1 1 1)) > ((0 1 0 1) (1 1 1 0)) > ((0 1 0 1) (1 1 0 1)) > ((0 1 0 1) (1 0 1 1)) > ((0 1 0 1) (0 1 1 1)) > ((0 0 1 1) (1 1 1 0)) > ((0 0 1 1) (1 1 0 1)) > ((0 0 1 1) (1 0 1 1)) > ((0 0 1 1) (0 1 1 1)) > } > > replace { } by () to have the list, other example at another level : > > minterms-set = > { > ((0 x 1 1) (x 1 1 1)) > ((0 x 1 1) (1 x 1 1)) > ((0 x 1 1) (1 1 x 1)) > ((0 x 1 1) (1 1 1 x)) > ((x 0 1 1) (x 1 1 1)) > ((x 0 1 1) (1 x 1 1)) > ((x 0 1 1) (1 1 x 1)) > ((x 0 1 1) (1 1 1 x)) > ((0 1 x 1) (x 1 1 1)) > ((0 1 x 1) (1 x 1 1)) > ((0 1 x 1) (1 1 x 1)) > ((0 1 x 1) (1 1 1 x)) > ((x 1 0 1) (x 1 1 1)) > ((x 1 0 1) (1 x 1 1)) > ((x 1 0 1) (1 1 x 1)) > ((x 1 0 1) (1 1 1 x)) > ((0 1 1 x) (x 1 1 1)) > ((0 1 1 x) (1 x 1 1)) > ((0 1 1 x) (1 1 x 1)) > ((0 1 1 x) (1 1 1 x)) > ((x 1 1 0) (x 1 1 1)) > ((x 1 1 0) (1 x 1 1)) > ((x 1 1 0) (1 1 x 1)) > ((x 1 1 0) (1 1 1 x)) > ((1 0 1 x) (x 1 1 1)) > ((1 0 1 x) (1 x 1 1)) > ((1 0 1 x) (1 1 x 1)) > ((1 0 1 x) (1 1 1 x)) > ((1 x 1 0) (x 1 1 1)) > ((1 x 1 0) (1 x 1 1)) > ((1 x 1 0) (1 1 x 1)) > ((1 x 1 0) (1 1 1 x)) > } > > here we see some minterms are already unified > > it is not easy to read even by me because i wrote the code many years ago > and is split in many files, but here it is: > > (par-map function-unify-minterms-list minterms-set) > > {function-unify-minterms-list <+ (λ (L) (apply > function-unify-two-minterms-and-tag L))} > > (define (unify-two-minterms mt1 mt2) > (function-map-with-escaping-by-kontinuation2 > (macro-function-compare-2-bits-with-continuation) mt1 mt2)) > > ;; (function-map-with-escaping-by-kontinuation2 > (macro-function-compare-2-bits-with-continuation) '(1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0) '(1 > 1 0 1 1 1 1 1)) > > ;; list1 = (1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0) > ;; more-lists = ((1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1)) > ;; lists = ((1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0) (1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1)) > ;; clozure = #<procedure:...gos-DrRacket.scm:195:11> > > ;; #f > ;; > ;; (function-map-with-escaping-by-kontinuation2 > (macro-function-compare-2-bits-with-continuation) '(1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0) '(1 > 1 0 1 1 1 1 0)) > > ;; list1 = (1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0) > ;; more-lists = ((1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0)) > ;; lists = ((1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0) (1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0)) > ;; clozure = #<procedure:...gos-DrRacket.scm:195:11> > > ;; '(1 1 0 1 x 1 1 0) > (define (function-map-with-escaping-by-kontinuation2 clozure list1 . > more-lists) > (call/cc (lambda (kontinuation) > (let ((lists (cons list1 more-lists)) > (funct-continu ;; this function have the kontinuation in his environment > (lambda (arg1 . more-args) > (let ((args (cons arg1 more-args))) > (apply clozure kontinuation args))))) ;; a tester: (apply clozure (cons > conti args)) > > ;; (newline) > ;; (dv list1) > ;; (dv more-lists) > ;; (dv lists) > ;; (dv clozure) > ;; (newline) > > (apply map funct-continu lists))))) > > (define-syntax macro-function-compare-2-bits-with-continuation ;; > continuation version of macro-compare-2-bits > ;; i need a macro because of external function to the clozure > (syntax-rules () > ((_) (let ((cnt 0)) ;; counter > (lambda (continuation b1 b2) (if (equal? b1 b2) > b1 > (begin > (set! cnt (add1 cnt)) ;; we leave with continuation in case cpt > 1, we > can have used a flag too instead of a counter > (when (> cnt 1) (continuation #f)) ;; escaping with the continuation > 'x))))))) ;; return x in case of (b1,b2) = (O,1) or (1,0) > > what could have caused mutex if in the latter definition above (let ((cnt > 0)) ;; counter was defined at top level and shared by all threads!!! yes > there could have be some mutex but this is not the case, i think even all > function are pure so why is it more slow with // than without? > Damien > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 8:45 PM Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> > wrote: > >> On 12-10-2022 19:19, Damien Mattei wrote: >> > Hello, >> > all is in the title, i test on a approximately 30000 element list , i >> got >> > 9s with map and 3min 30s with par-map on exactly the same piece of >> code!? >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > translated from Scheme+ to Scheme: >> > (define unified-minterms-set-1 (map function-unify-minterms-list >> > minterms-set)) ;;(par-map function-unify-minterms-list minterms-set)) >> >> The definition of 'function-unify-minterms-list' and 'minterms-set' is >> missing. Without a test case, we can only speculate what's going on. >> (E.g., maybe it grabs a mutex). >> >> Greetings, >> Maxime. >> >