lambda mining

[Austin Seipp]

IMO, it's reasonable to allow this, but there's one minor sticky bit.

async's only dependency is stm, and it's also part of the platform, so I
expect it will be relatively stable. In this case, perhaps we should just
add 'async' to the set of 'extra' libraries for ./sync-all, which can be
built with the compiler. Then, it should be easy to add tests for nofib
(and even testsuite, if people find bugs.) stm is already one of the
'extra' libraries, and there are a few smp benchmarks that use it too, so
this doesn't really change anything in that regard.

The main thing is that async isn't under our normal package structure, so
we'll either need to A) mirror it, or B) we need to add support for
./sync-all to sync with an arbitrary HTTP url or something, and point it to
Simon's repository as an extra package.

I'm in favor of 2 since then we don't have to maintain an unnecessary
mirror, and also, because it might be useful later for similar things.

Thoughts?

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<simonpj at microsoft.com>wrote:

>  (devs: this thread is about adding useful new benchmarks to nofib.)****
>
> ** **
>
> Oh bother. I’d forgotten about dependencies. I don’t want to make building
> nofib depend on libraries other those in GHC anyway (bytestring, unix ok,
> asynch perhaps not).  If that makes it tricky, maybe we should give up on
> the idea.****
>
> ** **
>
> S****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* José Pedro Magalhães [mailto:jose.pedro.magalhaes at cs.ox.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* 05 August 2013 08:41
> *To:* Simon Peyton-Jones
> *Subject:* Re: lambda mining****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm not entirely sure how to do that, though. Do I just add it to the
> "real" subset?
> How about dependencies (e.g. bytestring >= 0.9, unix >= 2.5.0, async >=
> 2.0.0.0, ...)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Pedro****
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  great!  Just add it :-)****
>
>
> simon****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* José Pedro Magalhães [mailto:jpm at cs.ox.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* 30 July 2013 07:48
> *To:* Simon Peyton-Jones
> *Cc:* Nicolas Wu; Wouter Swierstra; Jeroen Bransen
> *Subject:* Re: lambda mining****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> (CC-ing co-authors)
>
> Yes, I think it might work fine. Its running time can also be adjusted
> easily, depending on the maps
> given as input and some internal parameters. How would we go about adding
> it to nofib?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro****
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Pedro****
>
>  ****
>
> Wandering past your home page I took a look at your “lambda mining”
> paper.  Would it be suitable as a nofib benchmark? Moderate size, authentic
> code...  Would you be interested?****
>
>  ****
>
> Simon****
>
>  ****
>
>  ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Austin - PGP: 4096R/0x91384671
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20130816/872d7191/attachment.htm>