Eric Seidel <e...@seidel.io> writes: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016, at 05:49, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: >> * We discussed it in our weekly GHC Skype chat yesterday. One thing that >> would really help is to make it laughably easy to track >> - Micro: whether my commit made anything significantly worse >> (compile time/allocs, run time/allocs, binary size) >> - Our current perf tests only complain when you go outside >> a window, but 90% of the lossage might have been from other >> patches, which demotivates dealing with it > > It might be useful it phabricator ran the perf tests / nofib for every > patch and displayed a warning (think a lint warning) if any of the > metrics got worse. The warning would foster discussion about what caused > the perf regression and whether it needs to be fixed *before* merging > the patch. > Indeed we do already run the performance tests but at the moment you only get a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. One of my tasks for this week is to try adding better reporting of compiler performance in the testsuite driver.
Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
