darcs patch: Don't charge for int2Word# and word2Int# --
naesten at gmail.com
Tue Oct 31 21:55:15 EST 2006
Oops. I accidentally sent this just to SPJ... sorry!
On 10/31/06, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
> How to progress? Rather than try to follow the detailed path of your
> investigation, I wonder if you might do the following. When you achieve
> a stable situation where you think you have a collection of
> modifications that improve at least some programs, without making any
> significantly worse (you can negotiate about exceptions) send a patch or
> patches (to GHC and the libraries) that implements your proposal, along
> with a summary of what they do (unless that's all clear from the patch
> messages themselves). Preferably without patches that do X and later
> undo X...
> That way Simon and Ian and I can review and test one thing. Does that
> make sense?
Yeah. I've been under the impression that that was going to have to
happen before my patches were applied, I've basically just been hoping
for tips. Or "oh god no, don't do that! do this instead!" or
something. I've been working with a definition of "significant" where
1% slower doesn't count, but 5% does. And I've been assuming that a 1%
all-around increase in code size isn't too bad. And lately (since the
patch that doesn't consider unlifted args interesting unless they are
literals), I haven't seen *any* changes in allocation from my
unpatched tree. Hopefully with my patch to build the libraries with
-fext-core I will actually be able to figure out what is going on in
the libraries (which seems to be where a lot of the differences that
matter are). I assume there aren't really any performance
considerations there ;-).
More information about the Cvs-ghc