Oh wow, I didn't even know that commit existed. Now BaseTestNext.jl and
Base.Test are out of sync...
Bill, can you try using BaseTestNext.jl instead of Base.Test? If this
change was indeed responsible, then that might reveal it.
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:15:57 PM UTC-4, Tim Holy wrote:
>
> That's a big help. I'm not certain Jeff reads julia-users, however, so you
> might want to file an issue.
>
> Best,
> --Tim
>
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 04:34:25 PM 'Bill Hart' via julia-users
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2016 00:33:04 UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote:
> > > It seems there may have been two regressions. The first regression
> with a
> > > slowdown factor of just over 2 seems to be:
> > >
> > > 639621859863609c5f3abbc2ed75c675695b3693 is the first bad commit
> > > commit 639621859863609c5f3abbc2ed75c675695b3693
> > > Author: Jeff Bezanson <jeff.b{[email protected] <javascript:>>
> > > Date: Tue Jan 26 23:33:19 2016 -0500
> > >
> > > modify Base.Test not to create a closure for each test
> > > :
> > > :040000 040000 9c84c85afaed99190f3e744123dccc732f2c760e
> > >
> > > 486795536d95d1fb14fd9f7f415fb63cd9c6e490 M base
> > >
> > > :040000 040000 48205a7b1b007692c81b1a8d931cb44f6cc97be8
> > >
> > > acb43cd0ecece4237e1834b7a3b577f312884650 M test
> > >
> > > I will try to find time to find the second regression, which occurs
> > > between 1bfabbb and 1bfabbb I believe.
> >
> > Sorry, that should say between 1bfabbb and 9d6e726.
> >
> > Bill.
> >
> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 15:23:05 UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote:
> > >> I'll see if it is possible. Currently our code does not work at all
> with
> > >> large chunks of the Julia commits in that interval. We had to work
> around
> > >> various things and don't know precisely when they were switched on or
> > >> off.
> > >>
> > >> Bill.
> > >>
> > >> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 14:54:22 UTC+1, Tim Holy wrote:
> > >>> If you can git-bisect the change, it would be a huge help.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> --Tim
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 06:18:23 AM 'Bill Hart' via julia-users
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > In very recent Julia-0.5-dev the test code in our Nemo module
> takes
> > >>>
> > >>> forever
> > >>>
> > >>> > to start running. It's close to 2 minutes.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > This compares with about 15s with older Julia-0.5-dev, say 3
> months
> > >>>
> > >>> ago
> > >>>
> > >>> > before the LLVM switchover.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Does anyone know why there is this massive performance regression.
> Is
> > >>>
> > >>> it
> > >>>
> > >>> > likely that it can be fixed? It's really killing our development
> > >>>
> > >>> cycle.
> > >>>
> > >>> > Bill.
>
>
