Here is the latest set of numbers on the GHC repo. I left out the check test because it takes too long.
Note: in my last table, I called the --disable-bytestring version of
pre-salvo-8 "old"; what I should have called it was "fps" instead, which
I have done here.
The only real difference we should see in this table is in the
pull-1000 test, which now really manipulates 1000 patches. The
speedup seems quite dramatic. Is that an error, or is life actually
good?
|| fps | new
==================++========+======
get-complete || 7.5 | 5.7
init || 0.0 | 0.0
add-r-ghc || 0.4 | 0.3
get-lazy || 0.5 | 0.5
unpull-10 || 9.1 | 7.4
pull-10 || 3.4 | 2.6
unpull-100 || 62.6 | 15.0
pull-100 || 72.3 | 27.3
unpull-1000 || 211.3 | 28.8
pull-1000 || 189.9 | 49.4
unpull-1000-cache || 61.3 | 11.5
pull-1000-cache || 190.6 | 49.3
whatsnew-empty || 0.1 | 0.1
whatsnew-id-ego || 1.8 | 1.7
revert || 7.6 | 5.7
record || 5.2 | 4.6
unrecord || 11.4 | 5.5
record-l || 5.3 | 4.3
annotate || 985.7 | 755.2
Next, I will be adding the darcs darcs repository to the set of Standard
Darcs Benchmarks so that we can more easily reproduce the annotate
Setup.hs regression.
I don't really understand the difference between the two unpull
tests by the way, since I wouldn't expect the cache to actually
impact anything... I'll attach also the shell script on which this test is
based.
--
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
go-one-iteration.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
