Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 20.10.2016, 10:20 -0400 schrieb Ben Gamari: > > Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <[email protected]> writes: > > > I’m getting this on HEAD on my Linux box (64 bit) > > > > cd "./perf/T10858.run" && "/5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/inplace/test > > spaces/ghc-stage2" -c T10858.hs -dcore-lint -dcmm-lint -no-user-package-db > > -rtsopts -fno-warn-missed-specialisations -fshow-warning-groups > > -dno-debug-output -O +RTS -V0 -tT10858.comp.stats --machine-readable -RTS > > > > bytes allocated value is too low: > > > > (If this is because you have improved GHC, please > > > > update the test so that GHC doesn't regress again) > > > > Expected T10858(normal) bytes allocated: 241655120 +/-8% > > > > Lower bound T10858(normal) bytes allocated: 222322710 > > > > Upper bound T10858(normal) bytes allocated: 260987530 > > > > Actual T10858(normal) bytes allocated: 221938928 > > > > Deviation T10858(normal) bytes allocated: -8.2 % > > > > Does anyone else? It’s good – but why isn’t Harbormaster complaining? > > > > A very good question. It looks like the result is straddling the edge of > acceptable so it's conceivable that Harbormaster is (for some reason) > just below the failing threshold. We've seen this sort of small > non-determinism in allocations in the past, although I don't have a > compelling explanation for why.
this is confirmed here: https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/#graph/tests/alloc/T10858 It is close to the lower edge, and not 100% stable. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner [email protected] • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: [email protected] • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
