On Thursday, 24 March 2016 00:33:04 UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> It seems there may have been two regressions. The first regression with a
> slowdown factor of just over 2 seems to be:
>
> 639621859863609c5f3abbc2ed75c675695b3693 is the first bad commit
> commit 639621859863609c5f3abbc2ed75c675695b3693
> Author: Jeff Bezanson <jeff.b{xxxxxx}@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue Jan 26 23:33:19 2016 -0500
>
> modify Base.Test not to create a closure for each test
>
> :040000 040000 9c84c85afaed99190f3e744123dccc732f2c760e
> 486795536d95d1fb14fd9f7f415fb63cd9c6e490 M base
> :040000 040000 48205a7b1b007692c81b1a8d931cb44f6cc97be8
> acb43cd0ecece4237e1834b7a3b577f312884650 M test
>
> I will try to find time to find the second regression, which occurs
> between 1bfabbb and 1bfabbb I believe.
>
>
Sorry, that should say between 1bfabbb and 9d6e726.
Bill.
>
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 15:23:05 UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> I'll see if it is possible. Currently our code does not work at all with
>> large chunks of the Julia commits in that interval. We had to work around
>> various things and don't know precisely when they were switched on or off.
>>
>> Bill.
>>
>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 14:54:22 UTC+1, Tim Holy wrote:
>>>
>>> If you can git-bisect the change, it would be a huge help.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> --Tim
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 06:18:23 AM 'Bill Hart' via julia-users
>>> wrote:
>>> > In very recent Julia-0.5-dev the test code in our Nemo module takes
>>> forever
>>> > to start running. It's close to 2 minutes.
>>> >
>>> > This compares with about 15s with older Julia-0.5-dev, say 3 months
>>> ago
>>> > before the LLVM switchover.
>>> >
>>> > Does anyone know why there is this massive performance regression. Is
>>> it
>>> > likely that it can be fixed? It's really killing our development
>>> cycle.
>>> >
>>> > Bill.
>>>
>>>
