Profiling bug in 6.10.4

[Krzysztof Skrzętnicki]

I got some results from  GHC 6.12.1, Linux i686. In short: both
profiling and normal run produce the same final results, but there are
some differences. I don't know if they are valid or not.

./nsyn | tail
1080826.599  0.01   8.483e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.517e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1134406.808  0.01   6.911e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1191190.672  0.01   5.615e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1251481.495  0.01   4.548e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1315638.396  0.01   3.671e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1384093.315  0.01   2.952e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.515e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1457375.318  0.01   2.364e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.515e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1535826.102  0.01   1.884e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.515e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1619603.195  0.01   1.495e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.514e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1709306.677  0.01   1.180e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.514e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16

 ./nsyn-prof | tail
1080826.599  0.01   8.483e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.517e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1134406.808  0.01   6.911e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1191190.672  0.01   5.615e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1251481.495  0.01   4.548e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1315638.396  0.01   3.671e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.516e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1384093.315  0.01   2.952e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.515e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1457375.318  0.01   2.364e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.515e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1535826.102  0.01   1.884e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.515e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1619603.195  0.01   1.495e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.514e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16
1709306.677  0.01   1.180e-15    7.612e-1    7.753e-5    2.514e-7
1.566e-5    2.387e-1   3.089e-14   6.337e-11   5.791e-11   5.665e-16

Best regards

Krzysztof Skrzętnicki

2010/3/22 Gregory Wright <gwright at antiope.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 3/22/10 10:22 AM, Gregory Wright wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a program (attached) that is relatively simple, but numerically
>> intensive.
>> It computes the abundances of the chemical elements generated by big-bang
>> nucleosynthesis.  At the moment, the executable takes no command line
>> arguments,
>> it simply runs the standard model.
>>
>> When I build the program without profiling, it produces the right answer.
>>  When
>> I build it with profiling (runhaskell configure
>> --enable-executable-profiling) it runs
>> without error, but gives completely incorrect numerical results.  I'm
>> using ghc 6.10.4
>> built from source using MacPorts.
>>
>> The program is mostly self contained, but uses the hmatrix package to
>> solve a linear
>> system.  Note also that the "Vector" type is hmatrix's Data.Packed.Vector
>> and not
>> the one from the more familiar "vector" package.
>>
>> I was wondering whether this profiling problem is known.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Greg
>>
>
> The previously attach tarball was missing most of its contents, courtesy
> of my ham-fisted emacs technique.  The tarball attached to this message has
> been tested by building and shows the problem mentioned above.
>
> -Greg
>