Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| However, whenever I change a data type or class even if they are not
| exported, it seems to force a full rebuild of everything that depends on
| that file. Is there any fundamental reason this can't be fixed? why do
| the non exported classes and data types end up in
| However, whenever I change a data type or class even if they are not
| exported, it seems to force a full rebuild of everything that depends on
| that file. Is there any fundamental reason this can't be fixed? why do
| the non exported classes and data types end up in the hi file anyway
| (assumi
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:54:37AM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> For hacking, you want the build to be quick - quick to build in the
> first place, and quick to rebuild after making changes. Tuning your
> build setup can make the difference between several hours to build
> GHC, a
Joel Reymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
> Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
Another thought. The ghc HACKING guide has this to say:
The GHC build tree is set up so that, by default, it builds a
co
Joel Reymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
> Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
Building a compiler generally reads/touches/creates a very large number
of files. So one possibility is the relative efficiency o
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 26 July 2006 09:41, Joel Reymont wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
sometime :-(
Well, I re-built ghc from scratch on my PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz with 1Gb
of memory. It took somewhere north of
On 26 July 2006 09:41, Joel Reymont wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
>> If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
>> sometime :-(
>
> Well, I re-built ghc from scratch on my PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz with 1Gb
> of memory. It took somewhere north of 7 hours
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
sometime :-(
Well, I re-built ghc from scratch on my PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz with 1Gb
of memory. It took somewhere north of 7 hours. The MacBook Pro 2Ghz
looks speedy by comparison a
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
sometime :-(
Someone on #haskell also suggested using jhc for a while :D. Still,
I'm very curious why ocaml builds fast and ghc builds slow. Is this
because profiling the compiler
Joel Reymont wrote:
Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
There are a lot of variables in a GHC build, we'd have to be sure that those
measurements were taken on completely identical builds - i.e. profiled li
Duncan,
Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
Thanks, Joel
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote:
BTW, ghc's build system does support parallel make, so if you do have
more than one CPU t
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:45 +0100, Joel Reymont wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Christian Maeder wrote:
> > On our solaris sparc machine compiling our main binary (optimized)
> > takes
> > 3h:38min whereas (only) 55min under linux. At least our sparcs may die
> > out sooner or later.
>
> I
On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Christian Maeder wrote:
On our solaris sparc machine compiling our main binary (optimized)
takes
3h:38min whereas (only) 55min under linux. At least our sparcs may die
out sooner or later.
Interestingly enough, it takes the 3+ hours to compile GHC 6.5 on my
Int
13 matches
Mail list logo
