The test is checking that the cost-centre stack looks right. The difference appears to be in the original we have CAF->main->{g,h}, whereas in your version it is MAIN->main->{g,h}. I don't remember all the details, but this looks like an innocuous change to me so just go ahead and accept the output change. Cheers, Simon On 02/11/2014 22:51, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
it seems that adding the oneShot annotation to the interface causes scc001 to fail:
Actual prof output differs from expected: --- ./profiling/should_run/scc001.prof.sample 2014-11-02 20:21:03.000000000 +0100 +++ ./profiling/should_run/scc001.prof 2014-11-02 20:46:39.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,28 +1,33 @@ - Fri Oct 14 16:27 2011 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final) + Sun Nov 2 20:46 2014 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
scc001 +RTS -hc -p -RTS
- total time = 0.00 secs (0 ticks @ 20 ms) - total alloc = 46,020 bytes (excludes profiling overheads) + total time = 0.00 secs (0 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor) + total alloc = 51,344 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
-MAIN MAIN 0.0 23.0 -CAF GHC.IO.Encoding.Iconv 0.0 1.3 -CAF GHC.IO.Handle.FD 0.0 74.2 +MAIN MAIN 0.0 1.9 +CAF GHC.IO.Encoding 0.0 5.4 +CAF GHC.Conc.Signal 0.0 1.3 +CAF GHC.IO.Handle.FD 0.0 67.3 +main Main 0.0 22.8
individual inherited COST CENTRE MODULE no. entries %time %alloc %time %alloc
-MAIN MAIN 101 0 0.0 23.0 0.0 100.0 - CAF GHC.Show 141 0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 - CAF GHC.IO.Handle.FD 128 0 0.0 74.2 0.0 74.2 - CAF GHC.IO.Encoding.Iconv 120 0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 - CAF GHC.Conc.Signal 110 0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 - CAF Main 107 0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 - (...) Main 206 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - h Main 205 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - main Main 202 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - g Main 204 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - f Main 203 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 +MAIN MAIN 44 0 0.0 1.9 0.0 100.0 + main Main 89 0 0.0 22.8 0.0 22.8 + g Main 91 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + f Main 90 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + CAF Main 87 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 + (...) Main 93 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + h Main 92 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + main Main 88 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + CAF GHC.IO.Handle.Text 84 0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 + CAF GHC.IO.Encoding.Iconv 80 0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 + CAF GHC.IO.Handle.FD 79 0 0.0 67.3 0.0 67.3 + CAF GHC.Show 77 0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 + CAF GHC.Conc.Signal 74 0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 + CAF GHC.IO.Encoding 72 0 0.0 5.4 0.0 5.4 *** unexpected failure for scc001(profasm)
Now after reading some of the code it seems that the output is normalized considerably before comparing.
But I’m not fully sure what is being checked here. So things change: Is that change a regression? An improvement? Or just an a wobble that should not worry me?
Greetings, Joachim
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs