Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be v helpful would be a regression suite aimed at
> performance, that benchmarked GHC (and perhaps other Haskell
> compilers) against a set of programs, regularly, and published the
> results on a web page, highlighting regressions.
Something along these lines already exists - the nobench suite.
darcs get http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/code/nobench
It originally compared ghc, ghci, hugs, nhc98, hbc, and jhc.
(Currently the results at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench.html
compare only variations of ghc fusion rules.)
I have just been setting up my own local copy - initial results at
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/nobench/powerpc/results.html
where I intend to compare ghc from each of the 6.4, 6.6 and 6.8
branches, against nhc98 and any other compilers I can get working.
I have powerpc, intel, and possibly sparc machines available.
> Like Hackage, it should be easy to add a new program.
Is submitting a patch against the darcs repo sufficiently easy?
Should we move the master darcs repo to somewhere more accessible, like
code.haskell.org?
> It'd be good to measure run-time,
Done...
> but allocation count, peak memory use, code size,
> compilation time are also good (and rather more stable) numbers to
> capture.
Nobench does already collect code size, but does not yet display it in
the results table. I specifically want to collect compile time as well.
Not sure what the best way to measure allocation and peak memory use
are?
Regards,
Malcolm
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
