On 13/01/14 08:42, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > None seem to fail on my (Linux) box. It'd be good if someone felt able to dig > into the ones that are failing. If there is a good reason we should open a > ticket and mark them as expect_broken( ticket-number ). Thanks! > > Simon >
Hm. I checked a log from 6 days ago and here's the end of it: > Unexpected failures: > perf/compiler T1969 [stat too good] (normal) > perf/compiler T3064 [stat not good enough] (normal) > perf/compiler T3294 [stat not good enough] (normal) > perf/compiler T4801 [stat not good enough] (normal) > perf/haddock haddock.Cabal [stat not good enough] (normal) > perf/haddock haddock.base [stat not good enough] (normal) > perf/haddock haddock.compiler [stat not good enough] (normal) > perf/should_run lazy-bs-alloc [stat too good] (normal) We already know that the 32-bit Linux values for Haddock need updating but I have no idea about other ones. I will validate with a clean tree in the following few days and will pester the list with any failures but perhaps for the tests above, the numbers simply need updating. I do not know, I don't think there's any information anywhere about this. Perhaps there indeed aren't any problems but simply outdated tests. Can someone pitch in? Note that to a newcomer, a perf failure is still a failure especially considering that the bottom of the log tells you to fix these before sending any patches. I think fixing these is a little bit out of scope for a newcomer. -- Mateusz K. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs