> I'm about to commit the long-promised inline patch. The nofib results are > attached, relative to the current HEAD. > > * Execution times seems to improve quite a bit, > but I don't know whether to trust them. > > * Allocations are generally down slightly. One outlier is 'rewrite' > which has a very delicate CSE opportunity, so I don't mind this. > I'm still chasing 'bspt', but I don't think it's a big deal. > > * Binary sizes wobble about a bit, and are up 0.9% on average, > but I think that's acceptable. > > * Compile times seems down fairly consistently > > * Module sizes wobble about a bit; average is down 0.5% > > The main goal is to get a new, more robust framework for programs that use > a lot of overloading, which NDP does. For NDP, the new stuff makes GHC > usable, whereas it's just hopelessly slow and/or all bloated code without > it. I'm quite keen to the patch in, because at the moment I have to send > a weekly patch to Australia, and it's becoming difficult at their end. > > There a *LOT* of changes to many files, so committing this patch will make > it more difficult to move stuff to the branch. > > Happy for me to go ahead?
I support this. I'd like to see any uncommected parts of the patch split off into separate commits (e.g. comment-only changes) if that's at all possible, though. If you use darcsum (http://chneukirchen.org/repos/darcsum/darcsum.el) recording lots of little patches is a breeze. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
