Unpack primitive types by default in data
marlowsd at gmail.com
Mon Feb 27 10:25:32 CET 2012
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?)
> 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
>> 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
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users