Is anything being done to remedy the soul crushing compile times of GHC?

[Ben Gamari]

Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016, at 05:49, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>> * We discussed it in our weekly GHC Skype chat yesterday.  One thing that
>>   would really help is to make it laughably easy to track
>>    - Micro: whether my commit made anything significantly worse
>>       (compile time/allocs, run time/allocs, binary size)
>>    - Our current perf tests only complain when you go outside
>>      a window, but 90% of the lossage might have been from other
>>      patches, which demotivates dealing with it
>
> It might be useful it phabricator ran the perf tests / nofib for every
> patch and displayed a warning (think a lint warning) if any of the
> metrics got worse. The warning would foster discussion about what caused
> the perf regression and whether it needs to be fixed *before* merging
> the patch.
>
Indeed we do already run the performance tests but at the moment you
only get a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. One of my tasks for this week is
to try adding better reporting of compiler performance in the testsuite
driver.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20160216/48e2fdb1/attachment.sig>