Test perf/compiler/T9675 is failing (dramatically) for me. See https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13668 Is it not failing for anyone else? Why does https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/ not show it up? Could someone (Reid?) track down which patch made it go bad? Simon
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 09.05.2017, 07:39 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs:
Why does https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/ not show it up?
I found that max_bytes_used perf tests are too unreliable and flaky, and add too much noise to the performance reports, so perf.haskell.org ignores these. Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs
Test perf/compiler/T9675 is failing (dramatically) for me. See https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13668 Is it not failing for anyone else? Why does https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/ not show it up? Could someone (Reid?) track down which patch made it go bad?
It was my "simplification" to Reid's patch, b3da6a6c3546562d5c5e83b8af5d3fd04c07e0c1, that regressed it. I still don't know why I didn't see this in my previous local testing, but I did start noticing it last night. Cheers, - Ben
participants (3)
-
Ben Gamari -
Joachim Breitner -
Simon Peyton Jones