Hi,
Am Montag, den 04.08.2014, 13:08 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > Am Montag, den 04.08.2014, 12:02 +0100 schrieb Edward Z.Yang: > > Yes, on my box, this test is now failing (because the stat is too good): > > > > Expected haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 127954488 +/-10% > > Lower bound haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 115159039 > > Upper bound haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 140749937 > > Actual haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: 113167424 > > Deviation haddock.base(normal) max_bytes_used: -11.6 % > > ugh. > > What are your compilation settings? Plain "validate"? > > Looks like the ghcspeed instance settings still don’t quite match what > validate does... > > But I don’t see anything in > mk/validate-settings.mk > which would yield different results than > echo 'GhcLibHcOpts += -O -dcore-lint' >> mk/build.mk > echo 'GhcStage2HcOpts += -O -dcore-lint' >> mk/build.mk > > I’m starting a plain validate run on that machine, to see if it is > compilation settings or some other variable. validate goes through without a problem. So it seems to be dependent on other things. Are these very flaky measures (max_bytes_used) at all useful? So far, I have only seen friction due to them, and any real problem would likely be caught by either bytes_allocated or nofib measurements (I hope). Maybe we should simply remove them from the test suite, and stop worrying? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner [email protected] • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: [email protected] • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
