Unpack primitive types by default in data

[Simon Marlow]

On 17/02/2012 20:10, Johan Tibell wrote:

>> nofib probably has, to a first approximation, zero strictness annotations.
>>   Because most of the programs in there predate the addition of strictness
>> annotations to Haskell.
>
> That's good for us.

In what way?  The nofib programs have no strictness annotations, so they 
won't be affected by the optimisation, so the results won't tell us 
anything at all.  (am I missing something here?)

Cheers,
	Simon


> The downside of nofib is that it probably doesn't
> represent real world Haskell programs well, as they tend to use more
> packed types, such as ByteString, Text, and Vector. Still, it's a good
> start.
 >
>> GHC itself would be a good benchmark, incidentally...
>
> Indeed, that's what I thought as well. How do I test the build time of
> GHC? By building my modified GHC in one build tree and then use it to
> build another GHC in another (clean) build tree?
>
> -- Johan