Did anyone reply to this? It's an open bug http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=710864&group_id =8032&atid=108032 but we don't have a small example that demonstrates it. Can you provide one? Or can Amanda? Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: glasgow-haskell-users-admin@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-admin@haskell.org] | On Behalf Of Ashley Yakeley | Sent: 03 August 2003 09:32 | To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | Subject: Profiling Optimised Code | | The profiling report from my program compiled with GHC 6.0 with -O | -fvia-C on Mac OS X isn't making a lot of sense. The line with the most | time, 30.1%, has an entry count of zero, as do most of them: | | exprLetMap | Org.Org.Semantic.HScheme.Interpret.LambdaExpression 1939 0 | 0.3 0.0 30.3 0.0 | liftF2 Org.Org.Semantic.HBase.Category.Functor | 1940 0 0.0 0.0 30.1 0.0 | liftF1 Org.Org.Semantic.HBase.Category.Functor | 1941 0 30.1 0.0 30.1 0.0 | | It's also a fairly unlikely candidate for time consumption. liftF1 is | defined as simply equal to fmap, which presumably doesn't have a | cost-centre because it's defined in the standard libraries. But the | instance of fmap that it calls is fairly trivial. | | Am I misinterpreting the report, or would I be better off profiling a | unoptimised program to see where the slow bits are in that? I have | successfully improved code based on reports from unoptimised programs | from GHC 5.*, since those reports made much more sense. | | -- | Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA | | _______________________________________________ | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list | Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users