Joachim Harbormaster seems to be saying that GHC’s perf got a lot worse https://phabricator.haskell.org/harbormaster/ after Buildable 9015, which omitted the oneshot info. The typechecker seems to allocate a lot more. That is not good. Revert and investigate? Simon
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 31.03.2016, 14:56 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
Joachim
Harbormaster seems to be saying that GHC’s perf got a lot worse
https://phabricator.haskell.org/harbormaster/
after Buildable 9015, which omitted the oneshot info. The typechecker seems to allocate a lot more.
That is not good. Revert and investigate?
yes, I noticed as well, and perf.haskell.org has now also confirmed this. Just pushed a reversal. But I wonder what went wrong when I ran ./validate --slow locally. Can we please have harbormaster builds of DRs back? I felt just so much more secure about pushing when the commits were checked by a more reliable party than me. Greetings, 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
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 31.03.2016, 18:33 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
yes, I noticed as well, and perf.haskell.org has now also confirmed this. Just pushed a reversal. But I wonder what went wrong when I ran ./validate --slow locally.
interesting, my patch, as bad as it was for compiler performance,
improved the runtime of cryptarithm1 by the amount it regressed due to
commit d1179c4bff6d05cc9e86eee3e2d2cee707983c90
Author: Ben Gamari
participants (2)
-
Joachim Breitner -
Simon Peyton Jones