On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:08:58PM -0700, Tim Chevalier wrote:
I'm not surprised that building the libraries with ticky enabled doesn't work, because when I fixed ticky-ticky profiling a year and a half ago after it was bit-rotted, I hardly tested it and all and certainly didn't try building the ticky libraries.
I'm not surprised to see this answer--looking at tickets and mailing lists, it was clear that ticky-ticky wasn't in the best of shape, but I couldn't figure out what exactly the state of affairs was, so I figured I'd ask.
The reason you got linker errors was because, I assume, you had compiled the libraries with -ticky but you weren't passing the -ticky flag to GHC when you compiled your program. If you don't pass the -ticky flag, GHC doesn't link with the ticky RTS, so the library code will include all sorts of undefined symbols.
Right--thing is, it seemed I was getting linker errors on compiling the *libraries*--which seems weird, given that the libraries shouldn't be getting linked, should they? I'm not entirely sure this is what I was seeing, so, well, not a huge consideration, but it does seem weird.
But since you said below that it's OK if things are broken for non-ticky use, you should just be able to do: $ cd libraries/ $ make clean $ make EXTRA_HC_OPTS=-ticky $ cd [wherever] $ ghc -o foo -ticky foo.hs $ ./foo +RTS -rfoo.ticky -RTS and foo.ticky will contain your profiling report. You just won't be able to compile any programs without -ticky this way.
After removing "p" from GhcLibWays, which makes sense--the docs make it clear we can't combine prof and ticky, though it also implies that it maybe *should* work; might someone what to look into this?--this worked great, thanks. My tests are running nicely and giving what seems like accurate data. Thanks for the very helpful response.
In the meantime, I'll look into making the "ticky" way work so that it'll be possible to have ticky and non-ticky libraries coexisting.
Sweet. Admittedly I'm not yet a GHC wizard, but I'd love to help out by fixing this--do you have a rough idea of what would need to be done, or what in fact is the current problem? Thanks a lot, AHH