On 08/04/2014 01:08 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > 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. > > Greetings, > Joachim > > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
I'd like to point out that on my 32-bit box, I don't remember the last time Haddock perf numbers passed the validation even if I see commits updating them. See [1] for an example. [1]: http://haskell.inf.elte.hu/builders/validator1-linux-x86-head/43.html -- Mateusz K. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
