Malcolm.Wallace: > 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?
Yeah, this is hard. There are various non-portable perl scripts for this kind of thing, or +RTS -sstderr -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe