Simon Peyton Jones
| tests/alloc/haddock.Cabal 11811321368 + 6.40% 12567003040 | bytes | tests/alloc/haddock.compiler 60211764264 + 7.39% | 64658444232 bytes | | The haddock stats changes are probably genuine, I assume, but the | expected value in all.T should be updated. |
I'm sad about this. My changes should have had no visible performance impact. But I'm not set up to dig into why this one patch might have had such large impact on Haddock. Presumably it's not Haddock per-se but perhaps the GHC session that it invokes.
I am not sure what to do... I'm quite reluctant to cause a 7% regression in allocation without investigation. I suppose I or someone should investigate before-and-after, but I don't have time to do that this week.
If someone felt able to have a go, that'd be fantastic. Otherwise let's at least make a ticket.
For the record, the series of patches, one of which presumably causes the regression, is below. Bisecting to the right one would be very helpful -- but you have to apply the final one (haddock-update) first.
I've opened #12191 to track this. I'll try to get to it although I have a friend visiting at the moment so time will be a bit tight until Thursday. Cheers, - Ben