Fwd: Is anything being done to remedy the soul crushing compile times of GHC?
ben at smart-cactus.org
Wed Feb 17 08:58:43 UTC 2016
Evan Laforge <qdunkan at gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org> wrote:
>> Multiple modules aren't a problem. It is dependencies on Hackage
>> packages that complicate matters.
> I guess the problem is when ghc breaks a bunch of hackage packages,
> you can't build with it anymore until those packages are updated,
> which won't happen until after the release?
This is one issue, although perhaps not the largest. Here are some of
the issues I can think of off the top of my head,
* The issue you point out: Hackage packages need to be updated
* Hackage dependencies mean that the performance of the testcase is now
dependent upon code over which we have no control. If a test's
performance improves is this because the compiler improved or merely
because a dependency of the testcase was optimized?
Of course, you could maintain a stable fork of the dependency, but
at this point you might as well just take the pieces you need and
fold them into the testcase.
* Hackage dependencies greatly complicate packaging. You need to
somehow download and install them. The obvious approach here is to
use cabal-install but it is unavailable during a GHC build
* Hackage dependencies make it much harder to determine what the
compiler is doing. If I have a directory of modules, I can rebuild
all of them with `ghc --make -fforce-recomp`. Things are quite a bit
trickier when packages enter the picture.
In short, the whole packaging system really acts as nothing more than a
confounding factor for performance analysis, in addition to making
implementation quite a bit trickier.
That being said, developing another performance testsuite consisting of
a set of larger, dependency-ful applications may be useful at some
point. I think the first priority, however, should be nofib.
> From a certain point of view, this could be motivation to either break
> fewer things, or to patch breaking dependents as soon as the breaking
> patch goes into ghc. Which doesn't sound so bad in theory. Of course
> someone would need to spend time doing boring maintenance, but it
> seems that will be required regardless. And ultimately someone has to
> do it eventually.
Much of the effort necessary to bring Hackage up to speed with a new GHC
release isn't due to breakage; it's just bumping version bounds. I'm
afraid the GHC project really doesn't have the man-power to do this work
consistently. We already owe hvr a significant amount of gratitude for
handling so many of these issues leading up to the release.
> Of course, said person's boring time might be better spent directly
> addressing known performance problems.
> My impression from the reddit thread is that three things are going on:
> 1 - cabal has quite a bit of startup overhead
Yes, it would be great if someone could step up to look at Cabal's
performance. Running `cabal build` on an up-to-date tree of a
moderately-sized (10 kLoC, 8 components, 60 modules) Haskell project I
have laying around takes over 5 seconds from start-to-finish.
`cabal build`ing just a single executable component takes 4 seconds.
This same executable takes 48 seconds for GHC to build from scratch with
optimization and 12 seconds without.
> 2 - ghc takes a long time on certain inputs, e.g. long list literals.
> There are probably already tickets for these.
Indeed, there are plenty of pathological cases. For better or worse,
these are generally the "easier" performance problems to tackle.
> 3 - and of course, ghc can be just generally slow, in the million tiny
> cuts sense.
And this is the tricky one. Beginning to tackle this will require that
someone perform some very careful measurements on current and previous
Performance issues are always on my and Austin's to-do list, but we are
unfortunately rather limited in the amount of time we can spend on these
due to funding considerations. As Simon mentioned, if someone would like
to see this fixed and has money to put towards the cause, we would love
to hear from you.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ghc-devs