Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add tests for withSandboxBinDirOnSearchPath #1

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants

sol commented Nov 17, 2012

No description provided.

Owner

23Skidoo commented Nov 17, 2012

Can you submit this as a pull request for the main Cabal repo once my patch is accepted? I'm not sure how the others feel about the hspec dependency.

@23Skidoo 23Skidoo closed this Nov 18, 2012

Owner

23Skidoo commented Nov 18, 2012

Johan has merged my patch into Cabal master, please submit a pull request for the main Cabal repo.

sol commented Nov 20, 2012

@tibbe Is hspec fine with you?

tibbe commented Nov 20, 2012

@sol Does it integrate with test-framework? If it's really a better fit for the test, sure. But lets not introduce another test framework just because.

Committed to HEAD in modified form: haskell/cabal@043bbd9

@23Skidoo 23Skidoo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2017

@grayjay @ezyang grayjay + ezyang Solver: Check for cycles after every step.
Previously, the solver only checked for cycles after it had already found a
solution. That reduced the number of times that it performed the check in the
common case where there were no cycles. However, when there was a cycle, the
solver could spend a lot of time searching subtrees that already had a cyclic
dependency and therefore could not lead to a solution. This is part of
haskell#3824.

Changes in this commit:
- Store the reverse dependency map on all choice nodes in the search tree, so
  that 'detectCyclesPhase' can access it at every step.
- Check for cycles incrementally at every step. Any new cycle must contain the
  current package, so we just check whether the current package is reachable
  from its neighbors.
- If there is a cycle, we convert the map to a graph and find a strongly
  connected component, as before.
- Instead of using the whole strongly connected component as the conflict set,
  we select one cycle. Smaller conflict sets are better for backjumping.
- The incremental cycle detection automatically fixes a bug where the solver
  filtered out the message about cyclic dependencies when it summarized the full
  log. The bug occurred when the failure message was not immediately after the
  line where the solver chose one of the packages involved in the conflict. See
  haskell#4154.

I tried several approaches and compared performance when solving for
packages with different numbers of dependencies. Here are the results. None of
these runs involved any cycles, so they should have only tested the overhead of
cycle checking. I turned off assertions when building cabal.

Index state: index-state(hackage.haskell.org) = 2016-12-03T17:22:05Z
GHC 8.0.1

Runtime in seconds:
Packages                    Search tree depth   Trials   master   This PR   #1      #2
yesod                       343                 3        2.00     2.00      2.13    2.02
yesod gi-glib leksah        744                 3        3.21     3.31      4.10    3.48
phooey                      66                  3        3.48     3.54      3.56    3.57
Stackage nightly snapshot   6791                1        186      193       357     191

Total memory usage in MB, with '+RTS -s':
Packages                                        Trials   master    This PR   #1     #2
yesod                                           1         189       188       188     198
yesod gi-glib leksah                            1         257       257       263     306
Stackage nightly snapshot                       1        1288      1338      1432   12699

#1 - Same as master, but with cycle checking (Data.Graph.stronglyConnComp) after
     every step.
#2 - Store dependencies in Distribution.Compat.Graph in the search tree, and
     check for cycles containing the current package at every step.
f4f57f2
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment