On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:39:36PM +0000, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote: > On 07/01/14 18:21, Austin Seipp wrote: > > > > Also, the performance failures you're seeing are (I speculate) due to > > out of date performance numbers. Sometimes these numbers go up or down > > just due to code churn, but they're sometimes finnicky, because they > > may depend on the exact time a major GC happens or something. So a > > small wibble can cause them to sometimes occasionally fail. > > These are the numbers from the clean tree.
The haddock perf numbers look pretty bad, especially the peak_megabytes_allocated: =====> haddock.base(normal) 429 of 3855 [0, 0, 0] peak_megabytes_allocated value is too high: Expected peak_megabytes_allocated: 139 +/-1% Actual peak_megabytes_allocated: 180 =====> haddock.Cabal(normal) 430 of 3855 [0, 1, 0] peak_megabytes_allocated value is too high: Expected peak_megabytes_allocated: 89 +/-1% Actual peak_megabytes_allocated: 150 =====> haddock.compiler(normal) 431 of 3855 [0, 2, 0] max_bytes_used value is too high: Expected peak_megabytes_allocated: 663 +/-1% Actual peak_megabytes_allocated: 794 I think it would be worth working out what's going on before merging more haddock changes. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs