[commit: ghc] master: Bump haddock.base max_bytes_used (8df7fea)
Edward Z. Yang
ezyang at mit.edu
Mon Aug 4 13:02:42 UTC 2014
Yes, plain validate.
Cheers,
Edward
Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2014-08-04 12:08:31 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 04.08.2014, 12:02 +0100 schrieb Edward Z.Yang:
> > Yes, on my box, this test is now failing (because the stat is too good):
> >
> > Expected haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 127954488 +/-10%
> > Lower bound haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 115159039
> > Upper bound haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 140749937
> > Actual haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 113167424
> > Deviation haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: -11.6 %
>
> ugh.
>
> What are your compilation settings? Plain "validate"?
>
> Looks like the ghcspeed instance settings still don’t quite match what
> validate does...
>
> But I don’t see anything in
> mk/validate-settings.mk
> which would yield different results than
> echo 'GhcLibHcOpts += -O -dcore-lint' >> mk/build.mk
> echo 'GhcStage2HcOpts += -O -dcore-lint' >> mk/build.mk
>
> I’m starting a plain validate run on that machine, to see if it is
> compilation settings or some other variable.
>
> Greetings,
> Joachim
>
More information about the ghc-devs
mailing list