ghc 8.0.2 vs 8.4.1 compilation time and performance

Evan Laforge qdunkan at
Fri Mar 23 00:14:57 UTC 2018

Ok, done, I created

But first:

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Simon Peyton Jones
<simonpj at> wrote:
> score           max mb  total mb  prd    derive     lily       perform
> ghc
> 6               72.26   3279.22   0.88   0.79~0.84  0.70~0.74  0.31~0.33
> 8.0.2
> 6               76.63   3419.20   0.58   1.45~1.59  1.05~1.07  0.33~0.36
> 8.4.1
> bloom           70.69   2456.14   0.89   1.32~1.36             0.15~0.16
> 8.0.2
> bloom           67.86   2589.97   0.62   1.94~1.99             0.20~0.22
> 8.4.1
> The bytes-allocated number has gone up a bit.  (Not too surprising… the
> compiler is doing more.)  But the productivity number is down sharply, and
> consistently so, which translates directly into longer compile times.
> Somehow, although residency is not increasing, GC time is greatly increased.

To be clear, this is the performance of generated code, not the
performance of the compiler itself.  The conclusion from compiler
performance was non-optimized is much faster (yay!) and optimized
slightly slower.  That's reasonable if it's doing more work, but
somehow the more work turns into lower GC productivity in the
generated code :(

> It’d be good to figure out what’s gone wrong here. Maybe a change in nursery
> size or something stupid like that?

I don't think so, this is my own code and the invocation is the same
across versions, hopefully only the compiler version has changed.  I
am tweaking nursery size though, here are the RTS flags: -N -A8m -T

I can try testing again with no RTS flags.

I realize this is a bit vague as it stands, I'll try to narrow things down.

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list