marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 10:00:47 CET 2012
On 17/02/2012 01:59, Evan Laforge wrote:
>> However, the GHC API doesn't provide a way to do this directly (I hadn't
>> really thought about this when I suggested the idea before, sorry). The GHC
>> API provides support for compiling multiple modules in the way that GHCi and
>> --make work; each module is added to the HPT as it is compiled. But when
>> compiling single modules, GHC doesn't normally use the HPT - interfaces for
>> modules in the home package are normally demand-loaded in the same way as
>> interfaces for package modules, and added to the PIT. The crucial difference
>> between the HPT and the PIT is that the PIT supports demand-loading of
>> interfaces, but the HPT is supposed to be populated in the right order by
>> the compilation manager - home package modules are assumed to be present in
>> the HPT when they are required.
> Yah, that's what I don't understand about HscEnv. The HPT doc says
> that in one-shot mode, the HPT is empty and even local modules are
> demand-cached in the ExternalPackageState (which the PIT belongs to).
> And the EPS doc itself reinforces that where it says in one-shot mode
> "home-package modules accumulate in the external package state".
> So why not just ignore the HPT, and run multiple "one-shot" compiles,
> and let all the info accumulate in the PIT?
Sure, except that if the server is to be used by multiple clients, you
will get clashes in the PIT when say two clients both try to compile a
module with the same name.
The PIT is indexed by Module, which is basically the pair
(package,modulename), and the package for the main program is always the
This will work fine if you spin up a new server for each program you
want to build - maybe that's fine for your use case?
Don't forget to make sure the GhcMode is set to OneShot, not
> A fair amount of work in GhcMake is concerned with trimming old data
> out of the HPT, I assume this is for ghci that wants to reload changed
> modules but keep unchanged ones. I don't actually care about that
> since I can assume the modules will be unchanged over one run.
> So I tried just calling compileFile multiple times in the same
> GhcMonad, assuming the mutable bits of the HscEnv get updated
> appropriately. Here are the results for a build of about 200 modules:
> with persistent server:
> no link:
> 3.30s user 1.60s system 12% cpu 38.323 total
> 3.50s user 1.66s system 13% cpu 38.368 total
> 21.66s user 4.13s system 35% cpu 1:11.62 total
> 21.59s user 4.54s system 38% cpu 1:08.13 total
> 21.82s user 4.70s system 35% cpu 1:14.56 total
> without server (ghc -c):
> no link:
> 109.25s user 19.90s system 240% cpu 53.750 total
> 109.11s user 19.23s system 243% cpu 52.794 total
> 128.10s user 21.66s system 201% cpu 1:14.29 total
> ghc --make (with linking since I can't turn that off):
> 42.57s user 5.83s system 74% cpu 1:05.15 total
Yep, it seems to be doing the right thing.
> The 'user' is low for the server because it doesn't count time spent
> by the subprocesses on the other end of the socket, but excluding
> linking it looks like I can shave about 25% off compile time.
> Unfortunately it winds up being just about the same as ghc --make, so
> it seems too low.
But that's what you expect, isn't it?
> Perhaps I should be using the HPT? I'm also
> falling back to plain ghc for linking, maybe --make can link faster
> when it has everything cached? I guess it shouldn't, because it
> presumably just dispatches to ld.
--make has a slight advantage for linking in that it knows which
packages it needs to link against, whereas plain ghc will link against
all the packages on the command line.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users