Perhaps it suggests a bug in the interaction between that fancy require operator and the optimizer?
Robby On Friday, June 18, 2010, Vincent St-Amour <stamourv at ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > At Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:32:10 -0500, > Robby Findler wrote: >> I think you missed the require line. It is using unsafe-fl+ for example. > > You're right, my mistake. > > But that makes it even weirder that when I manually replaced these fl+ > with unsafe-fl+, the running times became consistent. > > Vincent >
