On 08/03/14 17:46, Carter Schonwald wrote:
one idea that I think Ben Gamari (or was it Reid?) pointed out is that another (potentially valuable) metric is "how long does it take for ghc to build itself"
The trouble is, that figure is affected by three main factors: the performance of the code generated by GHC, the performance of GHC itself, and the size of GHC's source code. You want to measure all these independently.
Cheers, Simon
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com <mailto:marlo...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 08/03/14 07:54, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: Hi Simon, On 2014-03-08 at 08:18:20 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: On 06/03/14 09:50, Johan Tibell wrote: [...] * Are there any tweaks to mk/build.mk <http://build.mk> <http://build.mk> we can do to make the build faster without compromising the results? Turn down the stage2 optimisation, and turn off the docs: GhcStage2HcOpts = -O ...but doesn't that compromise the compile-time metrics collected by nofib about GHC's performance? I think Johan is interested primarily in runtime performance, but yes if you care about compile time then it's better to leave GhcStage2HcOpts at the default. Cheers, Simon _________________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org <mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org> http://www.haskell.org/__mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs <http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
