The second bad commit is:
7facd20 Merge pull request #15300 from JuliaLang/jn/typeinfq
However this is only about a 60% regression. There is still a third commit
that is bad. I will try to bisect it today if I can.
There is also a fourth smaller regression of about 10% somewhere, but I
didn't bother tracking that down as we can live with that.
Bill.
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 02:15:57 UTC+1, 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.
>
>
