Re: gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Mark Lentczner
AHA! The clang libs weren't/aren't being built split-obj! ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Mark Lentczner
The clang executable size mystery deepens: The sizes are indeed wy big: 7.4M test-files-clang/test* 4.5M test-files-clang/test-stripped* 1.4M test-files-gcc/test* 1.1M test-files-gcc/test-stripped* Looking at the load info from the stripped versions, it is all in the main text segment:

Re: gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Mark Lentczner
It won't work in our case because the gcc 4.9 build we have references it's own c rts lib, which is 4.9 specific, and is notably different than what is on a stock Mac Imagine if we were to ship a libHSrts.a, compiled against the gcc 4.9 libc (and it's includes). Now a user without gcc 4.9 on thier

Re: [GHC] #9304: Floating point woes; Different behavior on Mac vs Linux

2014-07-12 Thread Levent Erkok
So, it appears that the one ending with 21 is the likely correct result; as opposed to 22. Is this an issue with some underlying library (glibc etc.); or an issue with GHC itself? On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:03 PM, GHC wrote: > #9304: Floating point woes; Different behavior on Mac vs Linux > ---

Re: [Haskell] ANNOUNCE: GHC version 7.8.3

2014-07-12 Thread Bryan O'Sullivan
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Austin Seipp wrote: > The GHC Team is pleased to announce a new patchlevel release of GHC, 7.8.3. > haddock 2.14.3 that ships with it seems to be quite broken. Perhaps it's a bad interaction with cabal, it's hard to say from the outside, but here are some details

Re: gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Carter Schonwald
why wouldn't it work? heres my 4.9 gcc build, I believe it should work on any >= 10.7 system that has xcode cli tools installed, please let me know if it fails! http://www.wellposed.com/opensource/ghc/releasebuild-unofficial/ghc-7.8.3-x86_64-apple-darwin.tar.bz2 On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 9:04 P

Re: gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Mark Lentczner
I will try to measure on 10.7 later today. Preliminary numbers for gcc 4.9 are even better than clang - it saves 12% over gcc 4.2 builds. However, the gcc runtime isn't the same as the Apple standard... and we are so far at a loss how to package a ghc based on 4.9 that would work for Mac users wit

Re: gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Carter Schonwald
Maybe it depends on the version of OS X being used? Maybe TLS works differently pre 10.8 or 10.9? On Saturday, July 12, 2014, Johan Tibell wrote: > I thought clang was slower than gcc because clang doesn't support thread > local variables (in some form we need) and therefore GC performance > su

Re: 7.8.3 source tarball imminent

2014-07-12 Thread Austin Seipp
Thank you Luke. The binaries are uploaded and on the webpage. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Luke Iannini wrote: > Hi Austin/all, > Here are the iOS builds! > http://tree.is/files/ghc-7.8.3-arm-apple-ios.tar.bz2 > http://tree.is/files/ghc-7.8.3-arm-apple-ios.tar.bz2.sha1 > http://tree.is/files/

Re: Travis now tests ghc directly

2014-07-12 Thread Johan Tibell
This is great! ___ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Johan Tibell
I thought clang was slower than gcc because clang doesn't support thread local variables (in some form we need) and therefore GC performance suffered a lot on clang. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Mark Lentczner wrote: > In building the OS X bindist for 7.8.3, I had to choose which of several

gcc vs. clang builds of 7.8.3 on OS X

2014-07-12 Thread Mark Lentczner
In building the OS X bindist for 7.8.3, I had to choose which of several ways to build it. In particular, I could build it with a newere Xcode, which uses clang, or an older Xcode which uses gcc. I decided to nofib benchmark the variations and see before I released. Here is what I found... I compa

Re: Travis now tests ghc directly

2014-07-12 Thread Gabor Greif
On 7/12/14, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > I just added a .travis.yml file to GHC master. This means that every > push will be validated automatic and for free by travis; you can check > the build status at https://travis-ci.org/ghc/ghc/builds > > It is not a full validation. In particular, >

Travis now tests ghc directly

2014-07-12 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, I just added a .travis.yml file to GHC master. This means that every push will be validated automatic and for free by travis; you can check the build status at https://travis-ci.org/ghc/ghc/builds It is not a full validation. In particular, * it skips DPH * it does not build dynamic librari

Re: RFC: unsafeShrinkMutableByteArray#

2014-07-12 Thread Simon Marlow
Yes, this will cause problems in some modes, namely -debug and -prof that need to be able to scan the heap linearly. Usually we invoke the OVERWRITING_CLOSURE() macro which overwrites the original closure with zero words, but this won't work in your case because you want to keep the original c

Note: Phabricator can now build code reviews!

2014-07-12 Thread Austin Seipp
Hi *, Quick notice: I spent some time hacking to get Phabricator to build code reviews you publish against the GHC repository. It luckily was not that hard to do so - hooray! Go here for an example: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D64 Look at the top set of information, and find 'Build Status'.

RFC: unsafeShrinkMutableByteArray#

2014-07-12 Thread Herbert Valerio Riedel
Hello Simon (et al.) While experimenting with refactoring/improving integer-gmp, I'd like to represent a GMP number just by a ByteArrays# (and thus save a redundant limb-count field). However, for that I'd need an efficient way to resize a MutableByteArray# for the result value in case its initial