Oops. I accidentally sent this just to SPJ... sorry! On 10/31/06, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sam
How to progress? Rather than try to follow the detailed path of your investigation, I wonder if you might do the following. When you achieve a stable situation where you think you have a collection of modifications that improve at least some programs, without making any significantly worse (you can negotiate about exceptions) send a patch or patches (to GHC and the libraries) that implements your proposal, along with a summary of what they do (unless that's all clear from the patch messages themselves). Preferably without patches that do X and later undo X... That way Simon and Ian and I can review and test one thing. Does that make sense?
Yeah. I've been under the impression that that was going to have to happen before my patches were applied, I've basically just been hoping for tips. Or "oh god no, don't do that! do this instead!" or something. I've been working with a definition of "significant" where 1% slower doesn't count, but 5% does. And I've been assuming that a 1% all-around increase in code size isn't too bad. And lately (since the patch that doesn't consider unlifted args interesting unless they are literals), I haven't seen *any* changes in allocation from my unpatched tree. Hopefully with my patch to build the libraries with -fext-core I will actually be able to figure out what is going on in the libraries (which seems to be where a lot of the differences that matter are). I assume there aren't really any performance considerations there ;-). _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
