On 30/11/12 03:54, Johan Tibell wrote:
While writing a new nofib benchmark today I found myself wondering
whether all the nofib benchmarks are run just before each release,
which the drove me to go look for a document describing the release
process. A quick search didn't turn up anything, so I
Jon Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
[...]
“\case” complicates lambda, using “of” simply breaks “case … of …”
into two easily understood parts.
Just some observation (I'm rather late to the lambda-case discussion, so
this might have been already pointed out previously):
if the
On 27/11/12 14:52, Ian Lynagh wrote:
GHC HEAD now has support for using dynamic libraries by default (and in
particular, using dynamic libraries and the system linker in GHCi) for a
number of platforms.
This has some advantages and some disadvantages, so we need to make a
decision about what we
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:28:41PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
Static by default, GHCi is dynamic:
* still can't do this on Windows
We can do it on Windows: We can use side-by-side assemblies.
(well, assuming we fix #5987).
Thanks
Ian
___
| While writing a new nofib benchmark today I found myself wondering
| whether all the nofib benchmarks are run just before each release,
I think we could do with a GHC Performance Tsar. Especially now that Simon has
changed jobs, we need to try even harder to broaden the base of people who
Oh, PLEASE people. Let's not have another round of bikeshedding about
this AFTER the feature is already implemented!
-Brent
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:25:27PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Jon Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
[...]
“\case” complicates lambda, using
Hi,
a bit late but here are my comments:
- my main (and in a way ``only'') concern is speed. At some point I'd
like my programs to consistently beat the pants off C ...
This won't happen soon, but when comparing to C it makes a difference
being able to say Haskell is x1.3 slower or x1.4
Could we not configure travis-ci to run the benchmarks for us or something like
that? A simple (free) ci setup would be easier than finding a pair of hands to
do this regularly I would've thought.
On 30 Nov 2012, at 14:42, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
| While writing a new
| Could we not configure travis-ci to run the benchmarks for us or
| something like that? A simple (free) ci setup would be easier than
| finding a pair of hands to do this regularly I would've thought.
Of course automation is great. The pair of hands is still needed to figure out
what to do,
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 15:51 +, Tim Watson wrote:
Could we not configure travis-ci to run the benchmarks for us or
something like that? A simple (free) ci setup would be easier than
finding a pair of hands to do this regularly I would've thought.
AFAIK Travis uses some IAAS service (EC2 if
Hi Simon,
I will try to find some time to set up a automatic run of nofib on my
buildbot (which is powerful enough) and have it graph the results over
time (and perhaps even email us when a benchmark dips).
-- Johan
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.comwrote:
I will try to find some time to set up a automatic run of nofib on my
buildbot (which is powerful enough) and have it graph the results over
time (and perhaps even email us when a benchmark dips).
I'll pitch in with
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 08:48 -0800, Johan Tibell wrote:
Hi Simon,
I will try to find some time to set up a automatic run of nofib on my
buildbot (which is powerful enough) and have it graph the results over
time (and perhaps even email us when a benchmark dips).
You might be interested in
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.orgwrote:
At the moment, I do not see how dynamically built
Haskell programs are in the interest of our user.
They do offer the prospect of fixing some annoying bugs for free, by
offloading them to existing, working system
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 30.11.2012, 12:28 + schrieb Simon Marlow:
Static by default, GHCi is dynamic:
* fast code and compiler
* GHCi bugs are fixed, no maintenance problems
* binaries not broken by library updates
* we have to build packages twice in Cabal (but can improve GHC to
If Bryan and Johan are the Performance Tsars the future looks bright. Or at
least fast. Thank you.
Simon
From: Bryan O'Sullivan [mailto:b...@serpentine.com]
Sent: 30 November 2012 16:53
To: Johan Tibell
Cc: Simon Peyton-Jones; glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
Subject: Re: GHC Performance
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
If Bryan and Johan are the Performance Tsars the future looks bright. Or at
least fast. Thank you.
If someone could point me to the build bot script that we run today
that would be a great start.
-- Johan
Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com writes:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I will try to find some time to set up a automatic run of nofib on my
buildbot (which is powerful enough) and have it graph the results over time
(and perhaps even
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:38:10AM -0800, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
If Bryan and Johan are the Performance Tsars the future looks bright. Or at
least fast. Thank you.
If someone could point me to the build bot
I can also offer a decently spec'd linux x86_64 machine, and a
functional OS X x86_64 Mountain Lion machine too. If possible I'll
offer my ARMv7 board as well, which currently fails late in the stage2
build on DPH. I haven't figured that one out just yet. All these can
all be available on a
This is something I'd be happy to help out with.
On 30 November 2012 11:48, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
I will try to find some time to set up a automatic run of nofib on my
buildbot (which is powerful enough) and have it graph the results over
time (and perhaps even
21 matches
Mail list logo
