unexpected failure for scc001

[Simon Marlow]

The test is checking that the cost-centre stack looks right.  The 
difference appears to be in the original we have CAF->main->{g,h}, 
whereas in your version it is MAIN->main->{g,h}.  I don't remember all 
the details, but this looks like an innocuous change to me so just go 
ahead and accept the output change.

Cheers,
Simon

On 02/11/2014 22:51, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems that adding the oneShot annotation to the interface causes
> scc001 to fail:
>
>
> Actual prof output differs from expected:
> --- ./profiling/should_run/scc001.prof.sample   2014-11-02 20:21:03.000000000 +0100
> +++ ./profiling/should_run/scc001.prof  2014-11-02 20:46:39.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1,28 +1,33 @@
> -       Fri Oct 14 16:27 2011 Time and Allocation Profiling Report  (Final)
> +       Sun Nov  2 20:46 2014 Time and Allocation Profiling Report  (Final)
>
>             scc001 +RTS -hc -p -RTS
>
> -       total time  =        0.00 secs   (0 ticks @ 20 ms)
> -       total alloc =      46,020 bytes  (excludes profiling overheads)
> +       total time  =        0.00 secs   (0 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
> +       total alloc =      51,344 bytes  (excludes profiling overheads)
>
>   COST CENTRE MODULE                %time %alloc
>
> -MAIN        MAIN                    0.0   23.0
> -CAF         GHC.IO.Encoding.Iconv   0.0    1.3
> -CAF         GHC.IO.Handle.FD        0.0   74.2
> +MAIN        MAIN               0.0    1.9
> +CAF         GHC.IO.Encoding    0.0    5.4
> +CAF         GHC.Conc.Signal    0.0    1.3
> +CAF         GHC.IO.Handle.FD   0.0   67.3
> +main        Main               0.0   22.8
>
>
>                                                         individual     inherited
>   COST CENTRE MODULE                  no.     entries  %time %alloc   %time %alloc
>
> -MAIN        MAIN                    101           0    0.0   23.0     0.0  100.0
> - CAF        GHC.Show                141           0    0.0    0.3     0.0    0.3
> - CAF        GHC.IO.Handle.FD        128           0    0.0   74.2     0.0   74.2
> - CAF        GHC.IO.Encoding.Iconv   120           0    0.0    1.3     0.0    1.3
> - CAF        GHC.Conc.Signal         110           0    0.0    0.7     0.0    0.7
> - CAF        Main                    107           0    0.0    0.4     0.0    0.4
> -  (...)     Main                    206           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> -  h         Main                    205           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> -  main      Main                    202           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> -   g        Main                    204           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> -   f        Main                    203           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> +MAIN        MAIN                     44           0    0.0    1.9     0.0  100.0
> + main       Main                     89           0    0.0   22.8     0.0   22.8
> +  g         Main                     91           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> +  f         Main                     90           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> + CAF        Main                     87           0    0.0    0.1     0.0    0.1
> +  (...)     Main                     93           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> +  h         Main                     92           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> +  main      Main                     88           1    0.0    0.0     0.0    0.0
> + CAF        GHC.IO.Handle.Text       84           0    0.0    0.2     0.0    0.2
> + CAF        GHC.IO.Encoding.Iconv    80           0    0.0    0.5     0.0    0.5
> + CAF        GHC.IO.Handle.FD         79           0    0.0   67.3     0.0   67.3
> + CAF        GHC.Show                 77           0    0.0    0.6     0.0    0.6
> + CAF        GHC.Conc.Signal          74           0    0.0    1.3     0.0    1.3
> + CAF        GHC.IO.Encoding          72           0    0.0    5.4     0.0    5.4
> *** unexpected failure for scc001(profasm)
>
> Now after reading some of the code it seems that the output is
> normalized considerably before comparing.
>
> But I’m not fully sure what is being checked here. So things change: Is
> that change a regression? An improvement? Or just an a wobble that
> should not worry me?
>
> Greetings,
> Joachim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>