Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de> writes: > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 06.12.2016, 17:14 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: >> Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de> writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Am Dienstag, den 06.12.2016, 19:27 +0000 schrieb Michal Terepeta: >> > > (isn't that's what perf.haskell.org is doing?) >> > >> > for compiler performance, it only reports the test suite perf test >> > number so far. >> > >> > If someone modifies the nofib runner to give usable timing results for >> > the compiler, I can easily track these numbers as well. >> > >> >> I have a module [1] that does precisely this for the PITA project (which >> I still have yet to put up on a public server; I'll try to make time for >> this soon). > > Are you saying that the compile time measurements of a single run of > the compiler are actually useful? > Not really, I generally ignore the compile times. However, knowing compiler allocations on a per-module basis is quite nice.
> I’d expect we first have to make nofib call the compiler repeatedly. > This would be a good idea though. > Also, shouldn’t this then become part of nofib-analye? > The logic for producing these statistics is implemented by nofib-analyse's Slurp module today. All the script does is produce the statistics in a more consistent format. Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs