<Tolstoy>
Ok, I'm going to see if deleting DrRacket.app and re-installing will solve that extra-tab-bar problem.
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
<Tolstoy>
Hm. That didn't work. There's a preference file somewhere I can't find.
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<Tolstoy>
Hm. Installed DrRacket on a fresh machine, and the macos supplied tab bar is not there, nor is the menu item I'd selected earlier (on the affected machine).
<Tolstoy>
On the new machine, an "Enter Full Screen" item existed. When I selected that, I got full screen, and the View menu had options for showing/hiding the tab bar. After quitting and restarting the app, the "full screen" option is gone forever.
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
sagax has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
<Tolstoy>
I can see this in the saved state plist: "NSWindowTabbingShoudShowTabBarKey-RacketWindow-RacketWindow-(null)-VT-FS". The word "Should" is misspelled.
<nisstyre>
there is a function called nanosleep in C
<nisstyre>
not sure if racket exposes it anywhere
<nisstyre>
I guess racket's sleep is an abstraction over sleep/usleep/nanosleep
orivej_ has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
<nisstyre>
probably because windows doesn't have a good way of doing this
<nisstyre>
as compared to posix
orivej_ has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
acarrico has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
<dzoe>
Actually it is a scheduler thing as there might be more racket threads running and/or some other work might need to be done.
orivej has joined #racket
TestNasm has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
acarrico has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
rgherdt has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
rgherdt has joined #racket
acarrico has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
dddddd has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
<Tolstoy>
jmiven: thanks, dzoe ... I just want something approximate (delay between attempts to make a web request).
zv has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<Tolstoy>
Hm. My scraper app in Racket uses about 120 MB of memory, while the chicken scheme one is about 15MB. Is that expected?
<samth>
Tolstoy: 120 MB for a web scraper seems a little high but not shocking to me
<Tolstoy>
I'm using #lang racket/base. The binary is 60MB, fwiw. (Chicken's is 12MB). Hm.
<samth>
For me, when I start racket with just `racket/base`, it uses about 9.5 MB. After loading `racket` and `net/url` it uses 36 MB.
<samth>
Of course, that isn't doing anything, so that's a lower bound.
rgherdt has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
TCZ has joined #racket
rgherdt has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej_ has joined #racket
fanta1 has quit [Quit: fanta1]
orivej_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
selimcan has joined #racket
orivej has joined #racket
<dzoe>
There is only one question left... How the heck did I end up patching CS register allocation code on saturday night?
<dzoe>
My current impression is that all the platforms' configurations specify only 2 extra FP registers and the register allocator expects only a few FP registers.
<dzoe>
Which means that just throwing more fp registers into the register allocator does not work as one would naively expect.
<dzoe>
However, if I test similar operations with fixnums, the CS register allocator does a great job (although a final pass filter could easily be applied to the generated machine code as there are some redundancies left anyway).
gabot has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
gabot has joined #racket
SenasOzys has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
SenasOzys has quit [Client Quit]
SenasOzys has joined #racket
SenasOzys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
SenasOzys has joined #racket
SenasOzys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
selimcan has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
badkins has joined #racket
TCZ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]