Does anyone know any easy-to-run compile-time benchmark suites?

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has or knows easy-to-run compile-time benchmarks? I'm looking for something like nofib -- ideally after a fresh build I should be able to just run `make` and get some numbers (mainly allocations) back. ___ ghc-devs

RE: isInvisible

It’d be great if you could. I’m about to commit a patch, but it doesn’t affect this much. (It’s just that getting the patch right made me fall into the swamp) S From: Richard Eisenberg [mailto:e...@cis.upenn.edu] Sent: 23 June 2016 14:17 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc:

Re: isInvisible

> * Required > * Specified > * Inferred > > I like that. Much more self-explanatory. Shall we go for it? > Sure. Now, who gets to do the work? :) Are you in the middle of a refactor around this? If not, I can do this this afternoon.

RE: isInvisible

No. We can't use visible type application with Visible arguments. If they're Visible, then you don't need the @. Ah yes. How about * Required * Specified * Inferred A Required argument is just that: it must be provided at all call sites. A Specified argument is one whose order we know

Re: isInvisible

On Jun 23, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > Richard > > I have just spent an hour plumbing the torrid swamp of binder visibility. > There is bad naming confusion. > > We have > > · Visible > > · Specified > > · Invisible > >

isInvisible

Richard I have just spent an hour plumbing the torrid swamp of binder visibility. There is bad naming confusion. We have · Visible · Specified · Invisible The function isVisible returns True for Visible and False otherwise. But isInvisible returns True for Invisible

Re: Require -fexternal-interpreter support for future TH changes?

I've answered all these questions (I hope) in the form of new Notes and signposts, please feel free to comment on this diff: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D2358. I'm happy to add more if needs be. On 22 June 2016 at 16:39, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2016, at