+1 here too :)
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Austin Seipp <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 from me. > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Johan Tibell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Johan Tibell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Benchmark some large program that isn't carefully tuned by using > >> strictness in just the right places (like our core libraries tend to > be), to > >> make sure this change doesn't hurt performance there. I nomiate GHC as > the > >> candidate program for this test. > > > > > > Here are the nofib compile times of unmodified GHC vs GHC compiled with > > -funbox-strict-fields: > > > > -1 s.d. ----- -3.3% > > +1 s.d. ----- +2.5% > > Average ----- -0.4% > > > > (I compiled GHC by adding the flag to GhcStage2HcOpts and GhcLibHcOpts.) > > > > I can't tell if this is noise or not. At least the compile times seem to > > have gone down every so slightly. > > > > With these three tests out of the way, are people happy with me turning > on > > the flag by default for the 7.8 release? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Austin - PGP: 4096R/0x91384671 > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
