(devs: this thread is about adding useful new benchmarks to nofib.) Oh bother. I'd forgotten about dependencies. I don't want to make building nofib depend on libraries other those in GHC anyway (bytestring, unix ok, asynch perhaps not). If that makes it tricky, maybe we should give up on the idea.
S From: José Pedro Magalhães [mailto:jose.pedro.magalh...@cs.ox.ac.uk] Sent: 05 August 2013 08:41 To: Simon Peyton-Jones Subject: Re: lambda mining I'm not entirely sure how to do that, though. Do I just add it to the "real" subset? How about dependencies (e.g. bytestring >= 0.9, unix >= 2.5.0, async >= 2.0.0.0, ...) Cheers, Pedro On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: great! Just add it :-) simon From: José Pedro Magalhães [mailto:j...@cs.ox.ac.uk<mailto:j...@cs.ox.ac.uk>] Sent: 30 July 2013 07:48 To: Simon Peyton-Jones Cc: Nicolas Wu; Wouter Swierstra; Jeroen Bransen Subject: Re: lambda mining Hi Simon, (CC-ing co-authors) Yes, I think it might work fine. Its running time can also be adjusted easily, depending on the maps given as input and some internal parameters. How would we go about adding it to nofib? Thanks, Pedro On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com<mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: Pedro Wandering past your home page I took a look at your "lambda mining" paper. Would it be suitable as a nofib benchmark? Moderate size, authentic code... Would you be interested? Simon
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
