(devs: this thread is about adding useful new benchmarks to nofib.)
Oh bother. I'd forgotten about dependencies. I don't want to make building nofib depend on libraries other those in GHC anyway (bytestring, unix ok, asynch perhaps not). If that makes it tricky, maybe we should give up on the idea.
S
From: José Pedro Magalhães [mailto:jose.pedro.magalhaes@cs.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 August 2013 08:41
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Subject: Re: lambda mining
I'm not entirely sure how to do that, though. Do I just add it to the "real" subset?
How about dependencies (e.g. bytestring >= 0.9, unix >= 2.5.0, async >= 2.0.0.0, ...)
Cheers,
Pedro
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:
great! Just add it :-)
simon
From: José Pedro Magalhães [mailto:jpm@cs.ox.ac.ukmailto:jpm@cs.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 30 July 2013 07:48
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: Nicolas Wu; Wouter Swierstra; Jeroen Bransen
Subject: Re: lambda mining
Hi Simon,
(CC-ing co-authors)
Yes, I think it might work fine. Its running time can also be adjusted easily, depending on the maps
given as input and some internal parameters. How would we go about adding it to nofib?
Thanks,
Pedro
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:
Pedro
Wandering past your home page I took a look at your "lambda mining" paper. Would it be suitable as a nofib benchmark? Moderate size, authentic code... Would you be interested?
Simon
