Re: nofib on Shake

[Gracjan Polak]

My time for this ticket run out and for the foreseeable future I won't be
able to do much. We can discuss ideas if you have some.

The part of nofib that is called fibno should be replaced with latest
version of packages and permanently connected to the test suite. Or
removed. This is the only sure conclusion I came to. Everything else is up
for debate.



W dniu wt., 10.01.2017 o 20:43 Michal Terepeta 
napisał(a):

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:35 AM Gracjan Polak 
> wrote:
> > I was looking nearby recently and you might want to take into account my
> > discoveries described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11501
>
> Thanks a lot for mentioning it! (I didn't see this ticket/discussion)
>
> I don't want to get in your way - did you already start working on
> something? Do you have some concrete plans wrt. nofib?
>
> From my side, I was recently mostly interested in using nofib to
> measure the performance of GHC itself. Nofib already tries to do that,
> but it's super flaky (it only compiles things once and most modules
> are small).  So I was thinking of improving this, but when I started
> to look into it a bit closer, I decided that it might be better to
> start with the build system ;) And then add options to compile things
> more than once, add some compile-time only benchmarks, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>
>
>
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: nofib on Shake

[Michal Terepeta]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:35 AM Gracjan Polak 
wrote:
> I was looking nearby recently and you might want to take into account my
> discoveries described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11501

Thanks a lot for mentioning it! (I didn't see this ticket/discussion)

I don't want to get in your way - did you already start working on
something? Do you have some concrete plans wrt. nofib?

>From my side, I was recently mostly interested in using nofib to
measure the performance of GHC itself. Nofib already tries to do that,
but it's super flaky (it only compiles things once and most modules
are small).  So I was thinking of improving this, but when I started
to look into it a bit closer, I decided that it might be better to
start with the build system ;) And then add options to compile things
more than once, add some compile-time only benchmarks, etc.

Thanks,
Michal
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: nofib on Shake

[Gracjan Polak]

I was looking nearby recently and you might want to take into account my
discoveries described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11501

2017-01-08 18:48 GMT+01:00 Michal Terepeta :

> Hi all,
>
> While looking at nofib, I've found a blog post from Neil Mitchell [1],
> which describes a Shake build system for nofib. The comments mentioned
> that this should get merged, but it seems that nothing actually happened?
> Is there some fundamental reason for that?
>
> If not, I'd be interested picking this up - the current make-based
> system is pretty confusing for me and `runstdtest` looks simply
> terrifying ;-)
> We could also create a cabal and stack files for `nofib-analyse` (making
> it possible to use some libraries for it).
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>
> [1] http://neilmitchell.blogspot.ch/2013/02/a-nofib-build-
> system-using-shake.html
>
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: nofib on Shake

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Montag, den 09.01.2017, 19:48 + schrieb Michal Terepeta:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM Joachim Breitner  
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Sonntag, den 08.01.2017, 13:45 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari:
> > > > We could also create a cabal and stack files for `nofib-analyse` (making
> > > > it possible to use some libraries for it).
> > > >
> > > This would be great. This would allow me to drop a submodule from my own
> > > performance monitoring tool.
> >
> > Exists since last April:
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/package/nofib-analyse
> >
> > Only the binary so far, though, but good enough for
> > "cabal install nofib-analyse".
> 
> Oh, interesting! But now I'm a bit confused - what's the relationship
> > between https://github.com/nomeata/nofib-analyse and
> https://git.haskell.org/nofib.git, e.g., is the github repo the
> upstream for nofib-anaylse and the haskell.org one for the other parts
> of nofib? Or is the github one just a mirror and all patches should go
> to haskell.org repo?

my repo occasionally pulls in the nofib-analyse directory from the
haskell.org nofib repo; see for example this commit (especially its
message):
https://github.com/nomeata/nofib-analyse/commit/8225e0dd84c3c31cd156d10df75ea47ea29eda87

So yes, patches go to the haskell.org nofib repo (or Phab or whatever).

Greetings,
Joachim
-- 
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: nofib on Shake

[Michal Terepeta]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM Joachim Breitner 
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Sonntag, den 08.01.2017, 13:45 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari:
> > > We could also create a cabal and stack files for `nofib-analyse`
(making
> > > it possible to use some libraries for it).
> > >
> > This would be great. This would allow me to drop a submodule from my own
> > performance monitoring tool.
>
> Exists since last April:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/package/nofib-analyse
>
> Only the binary so far, though, but good enough for
> "cabal install nofib-analyse".

Oh, interesting! But now I'm a bit confused - what's the relationship
between https://github.com/nomeata/nofib-analyse and
https://git.haskell.org/nofib.git, e.g., is the github repo the
upstream for nofib-anaylse and the haskell.org one for the other parts
of nofib? Or is the github one just a mirror and all patches should go
to haskell.org repo?

Thanks,
Michal
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: nofib on Shake

[Michal Terepeta]

> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:45 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:
> Michal Terepeta  writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > While looking at nofib, I've found a blog post from Neil Mitchell [1],
> > which describes a Shake build system for nofib. The comments mentioned
> > that this should get merged, but it seems that nothing actually
happened?
> > Is there some fundamental reason for that?
> >
> Indeed there is no fundamental reason and I think it would be great to
> make nofib a bit easier to run and modify.

Ok, cool. I'll have a look at using Neil's code and see if it needs
any updating or if something is missing.

> However, I think we should be careful to maintain some degree of
> compatibility. One of the nice properties of nofib is that it can be run
> against a wide range of compiler versions. It would be ashame if, for
> instance, Joachim's gipeda had to do different things to extract
> performance metrics from logs produced by logs pre- and post-Shake
> nofibs.

Thanks for mentioning this! I don't have any concrete plans to change
that at the moment, but I was thinking that in the future it'd be nice
if the results were, e.g., a simple csv file, instead of a log
containing all the stdout/stderr (i.e., it currently contains the
results, any warnings from GHC, output from `Debug.Trace.trace`,
etc.)
Anyway, that's probably further down the road, so before doing
anything, I'll likely send an email to ghc-devs so that we can discuss
this.


Cheers,
Michal
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: nofib on Shake

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Sonntag, den 08.01.2017, 13:45 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari:
> > We could also create a cabal and stack files for `nofib-analyse` (making
> > it possible to use some libraries for it).
> >
> This would be great. This would allow me to drop a submodule from my own
> performance monitoring tool.

Exists since last April:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/nofib-analyse

Only the binary so far, though, but good enough for
"cabal install nofib-analyse".

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: nofib on Shake

[Ben Gamari]

Michal Terepeta  writes:

> Hi all,
>
> While looking at nofib, I've found a blog post from Neil Mitchell [1],
> which describes a Shake build system for nofib. The comments mentioned
> that this should get merged, but it seems that nothing actually happened?
> Is there some fundamental reason for that?
>
Indeed there is no fundamental reason and I think it would be great to
make nofib a bit easier to run and modify.

However, I think we should be careful to maintain some degree of
compatibility. One of the nice properties of nofib is that it can be run
against a wide range of compiler versions. It would be ashame if, for
instance, Joachim's gipeda had to do different things to extract
performance metrics from logs produced by logs pre- and post-Shake
nofibs.

> We could also create a cabal and stack files for `nofib-analyse` (making
> it possible to use some libraries for it).
>
This would be great. This would allow me to drop a submodule from my own
performance monitoring tool.

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

nofib on Shake

[Michal Terepeta]

Hi all,

While looking at nofib, I've found a blog post from Neil Mitchell [1],
which describes a Shake build system for nofib. The comments mentioned
that this should get merged, but it seems that nothing actually happened?
Is there some fundamental reason for that?

If not, I'd be interested picking this up - the current make-based
system is pretty confusing for me and `runstdtest` looks simply
terrifying ;-)
We could also create a cabal and stack files for `nofib-analyse` (making
it possible to use some libraries for it).

Thanks,
Michal

[1]
http://neilmitchell.blogspot.ch/2013/02/a-nofib-build-system-using-shake.html
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs