Add cabal benchmark integration

[treeowl]

• Add the benchmarks to fgl.cabal.
• Disable AVL benchmarks that result in errors. Surely something
  needs to be fixed!

[treeowl]

I've also added a benchmark to build up a very full graph using &.

[ivan-m]

I assume the first argument is just for a proxy?

[treeowl]

No, the first argument is the graph to start with. But I'm using the Int
parameter wrong, because we can't really use it right. I think probably the
best we can do is ignore it.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

In test/benchmark.hs
#46 (comment):

insNodePatricia :: Int -> Patricia.UGr
insNodePatricia = insNodes' empty

+{-# INLINE buildFull' #-}
+buildFull' :: DynGraph gr => gr () () -> Int -> Int -> gr () ()
+buildFull' g n limit

• | n == limit = empty
• | otherwise = ([((), k) | k <- [0..n-1]],n,(),[((),k) | k <- [0..n-1]]) & buildFull' g (n + 1) limit

I assume the first argument is just for a proxy?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/haskell/fgl/pull/46/files/95215cb25d346d910f7fb11dcc4dddd3e316a95d#r76899816,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_cbvK3lbHfN1UtAIiNVjs4pKJIXvks5qlL6jgaJpZM4Jw2_G
.

[treeowl]

Actually, no, ignoring it won't work either. I have no idea how to make
my benchmark work with microbench.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David Feuer david.feuer@gmail.com wrote:

No, the first argument is the graph to start with. But I'm using the Int
parameter wrong, because we can't really use it right. I think probably the
best we can do is ignore it.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

In test/benchmark.hs
#46 (comment):

insNodePatricia :: Int -> Patricia.UGr
insNodePatricia = insNodes' empty

+{-# INLINE buildFull' #-}
+buildFull' :: DynGraph gr => gr () () -> Int -> Int -> gr () ()
+buildFull' g n limit

• | n == limit = empty
• | otherwise = ([((), k) | k <- [0..n-1]],n,(),[((),k) | k <- [0..n-1]]) & buildFull' g (n + 1) limit

I assume the first argument is just for a proxy?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/haskell/fgl/pull/46/files/95215cb25d346d910f7fb11dcc4dddd3e316a95d#r76899816,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_cbvK3lbHfN1UtAIiNVjs4pKJIXvks5qlL6jgaJpZM4Jw2_G
.

[treeowl]

Oh, I know what to do, I think. We need to run the same benchmark as many
times as it tells us, and hope the optimizer doesn't eat our shorts. Ugh.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:46 PM, David Feuer david.feuer@gmail.com wrote:

Actually, no, ignoring it won't work either. I have no idea how to make
my benchmark work with microbench.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David Feuer david.feuer@gmail.com
wrote:

No, the first argument is the graph to start with. But I'm using the Int
parameter wrong, because we can't really use it right. I think probably the
best we can do is ignore it.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

In test/benchmark.hs
#46 (comment):

insNodePatricia :: Int -> Patricia.UGr
insNodePatricia = insNodes' empty

+{-# INLINE buildFull' #-}
+buildFull' :: DynGraph gr => gr () () -> Int -> Int -> gr () ()
+buildFull' g n limit

• | n == limit = empty
• | otherwise = ([((), k) | k <- [0..n-1]],n,(),[((),k) | k <- [0..n-1]]) & buildFull' g (n + 1) limit

I assume the first argument is just for a proxy?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/haskell/fgl/pull/46/files/95215cb25d346d910f7fb11dcc4dddd3e316a95d#r76899816,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzi_cbvK3lbHfN1UtAIiNVjs4pKJIXvks5qlL6jgaJpZM4Jw2_G
.

[treeowl]

Ugh. Polykinded proxies weren't available till a bit late in the game. I doubt we care about running benchmarks on old GHC versions, so I'm just going to disable them for GHC < 7.8.

[ivan-m]

I'm OK with that.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, 11:41 AM David Feuer notifications@github.com wrote:

Ugh. Polykinded proxies weren't available till a bit late in the game. I
doubt we care about running benchmarks on old GHC versions, so I'm just
going to disable them for GHC < 7.8.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#46 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAwXc5QP-DE_sjRjpER-vzHe3PfwlsGwks5qlNvYgaJpZM4Jw2_G
.

[treeowl]

All right. I think I've got the benchmarks doing what they're supposed to now. I produce as many graphs (of my chosen sizes) as microbench tells me to, labeling each of them differently, and force them all to normal form. I believe this is appropriate to the benchmark framework, and the optimizer's not smart enough to monkey around with it too terribly much.

[ivan-m]

This works for fixing the AVL edge benchmarks:

-insEdges' g n = let g' = insEdge (1, n, ()) g
+insEdges' g n = let n' = n - 1
+                    g' = insEdge (0, n', ()) g
                 in
-                  insEdges' g' (n - 1)
+                  insEdges' g' n'

[ivan-m]

I wonder if there's a nicer way of allowing benchmarks to be run on only newer GHC's than using CPP hackery... fake it by putting a minimum bound on base for benchmarks?

[treeowl]

You'd also have to tell Travis not to try to build the benchmarks for earlier versions. I don't know much about that.

[ivan-m]

Right, didn't consider that. Let's go with this workaround of yours then whilst older GHCs are still supported.

[ivan-m]

I've pulled this in and tweaked it up a bit.

I remembered that I had a similar issue with Proxies for the test-suite and ended up rolling my own solution, which I've re-used for this, so no CPP hackery is required! \o/