Profiling bug in 6.10.4

[Gregory Wright]

On OS X 10.5.9 with ghc 6.10.4 with no  profiling I get :

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

but with profiling turned on I get

1301464.458  0.01    8.545e-1    9.002e-1   3.312e-12   5.820e-24   
6.174e-24   1.367e-34   1.505e-58   3.780e-70   3.586e-70   7.960e-82
1379801.447  0.01    8.545e-1    9.293e-1   3.312e-12   5.820e-24   
6.174e-24   1.411e-34   1.505e-58   3.780e-70   3.586e-70   7.960e-82
1462853.640  0.01    8.545e-1    9.596e-1   3.312e-12   5.820e-24   
6.174e-24   1.458e-34   1.505e-58   3.780e-70   3.586e-70   7.960e-82
1550904.850  0.01    8.545e-1    9.947e-1   3.312e-12   5.820e-24   
6.174e-24   1.511e-34   1.505e-58   3.780e-70   3.586e-70   7.960e-82
1644255.972  0.01    8.545e-1     1.032e0   3.312e-12   5.820e-24   
6.174e-24   1.568e-34   1.505e-58   3.780e-70   3.586e-70   7.960e-82
1743226.010  0.01    8.545e-1     1.074e0   3.312e-12   5.820e-24   
6.174e-24   1.631e-34   1.505e-58   3.780e-70   3.586e-70   7.960e-82

It's not just a matter of some addition numerical inaccuracy; the 
numbers are off by
orders of magnitude.

-Greg

On 3/22/10 2:42 PM, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki wrote:
> 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
>>
>>      
>
>