Starting GHC development.

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 13/01/14 08:42, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> None seem to fail on my (Linux) box. It'd be good if someone felt able to dig into the ones that are failing.  If there is a good reason we should open a ticket and mark them as expect_broken( ticket-number ).  Thanks!
>
> Simon
>

Hm. I checked a log from 6 days ago and here's the end of it:

> Unexpected failures:
>    perf/compiler    T1969 [stat too good] (normal)
>    perf/compiler    T3064 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/compiler    T3294 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/compiler    T4801 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/haddock     haddock.Cabal [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/haddock     haddock.base [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/haddock     haddock.compiler [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/should_run  lazy-bs-alloc [stat too good] (normal)

We already know that the 32-bit Linux values for Haddock need updating
but I have no idea about other ones. I will validate with a clean tree
in the following few days and will pester the list with any failures
but perhaps for the tests above, the numbers simply need updating. I
do not know, I don't think there's any information anywhere about
this. Perhaps there indeed aren't any problems but simply outdated
tests. Can someone pitch in?

Note that to a newcomer, a perf failure is still a failure especially
considering that the bottom of the log tells you to fix these before
sending any patches. I think fixing these is a little bit out of scope
for a newcomer.

--
Mateusz K.