| However, whenever I change a data type or class even if they are not
| exported, it seems to force a full rebuild of everything that depends on
| that file. Is there any fundamental reason this can't be fixed? why do
| the non exported classes and data types end up in the hi file anyway
|
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| However, whenever I change a data type or class even if they are not
| exported, it seems to force a full rebuild of everything that depends on
| that file. Is there any fundamental reason this can't be fixed? why do
| the non exported classes and data types end up in
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
sometime :-(
Well, I re-built ghc from scratch on my PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz with 1Gb
of memory. It took somewhere north of 7 hours. The MacBook Pro 2Ghz
looks speedy by comparison
On 26 July 2006 09:41, Joel Reymont wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
sometime :-(
Well, I re-built ghc from scratch on my PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz with 1Gb
of memory. It took somewhere north of 7 hours. The
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 26 July 2006 09:41, Joel Reymont wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
sometime :-(
Well, I re-built ghc from scratch on my PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz with 1Gb
of memory. It took somewhere north
Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
Building a compiler generally reads/touches/creates a very large number
of files. So one possibility is the relative efficiency of
Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
Another thought. The ghc HACKING guide has this to say:
The GHC build tree is set up so that, by default, it builds a
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:54:37AM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
For hacking, you want the build to be quick - quick to build in the
first place, and quick to rebuild after making changes. Tuning your
build setup can make the difference between several hours to build
GHC, and
On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Christian Maeder wrote:
On our solaris sparc machine compiling our main binary (optimized)
takes
3h:38min whereas (only) 55min under linux. At least our sparcs may die
out sooner or later.
Interestingly enough, it takes the 3+ hours to compile GHC 6.5 on my
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:45 +0100, Joel Reymont wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Christian Maeder wrote:
On our solaris sparc machine compiling our main binary (optimized)
takes
3h:38min whereas (only) 55min under linux. At least our sparcs may die
out sooner or later.
Duncan,
Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
Thanks, Joel
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote:
BTW, ghc's build system does support parallel make, so if you do have
more than one CPU
Joel Reymont wrote:
Thanks for the tip! I'm _really_ interested in why it takes 55 min on
Linux and 3+ hours on Mac Intel, though. Any clues?
There are a lot of variables in a GHC build, we'd have to be sure that those
measurements were taken on completely identical builds - i.e. profiled
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
If you think your build is slow, try building it on Windows
sometime :-(
Someone on #haskell also suggested using jhc for a while :D. Still,
I'm very curious why ocaml builds fast and ghc builds slow. Is this
because profiling the compiler
13 matches
Mail list logo
