Pusing to haddock
ben at well-typed.com
Tue Jun 14 08:36:17 UTC 2016
Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:
> | tests/alloc/haddock.Cabal 11811321368 + 6.40% 12567003040
> | bytes
> | tests/alloc/haddock.compiler 60211764264 + 7.39%
> | 64658444232 bytes
> | The haddock stats changes are probably genuine, I assume, but the
> | expected value in all.T should be updated.
> I'm sad about this. My changes should have had no visible performance
> impact. But I'm not set up to dig into why this one patch might have
> had such large impact on Haddock. Presumably it's not Haddock per-se
> but perhaps the GHC session that it invokes.
> I am not sure what to do... I'm quite reluctant to cause a 7%
> regression in allocation without investigation. I suppose I or someone
> should investigate before-and-after, but I don't have time to do that
> this week.
> If someone felt able to have a go, that'd be fantastic. Otherwise
> let's at least make a ticket.
> For the record, the series of patches, one of which presumably causes
> the regression, is below. Bisecting to the right one would be very
> helpful -- but you have to apply the final one (haddock-update) first.
I've opened #12191 to track this. I'll try to get to it although I have
a friend visiting at the moment so time will be a bit tight until
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 472 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ghc-devs