bug#46101: closed ([PATCH 1/4] guix: Fix typo.)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:16:47 +0100
with message-id <8735ylqk00.fsf@gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#46100: [PATCH 0/4] Memoize inferior package access.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #46100,
regarding [PATCH 1/4] guix: Fix typo.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
46100: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=46100
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH 1/4] guix: Fix typo.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:37:35 +0100
>
>
>
>
> * guix/inferior.scm (inferior-available-packages): Remove extra word in
> docstring.
> ---
>  guix/inferior.scm | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/guix/inferior.scm b/guix/inferior.scm
> index 2fe91beaab..da6983d9a6 100644
> --- a/guix/inferior.scm
> +++ b/guix/inferior.scm
> @@ -311,8 +311,7 @@ Raise '&inferior-exception' when an exception is read from 
> PORT."
>    "Return the list of name/version pairs corresponding to the set of packages
>  available in INFERIOR.
>  
> -This is faster and requires less resource-intensive than calling
> -'inferior-packages'."
> +This is faster and less resource-intensive than calling 'inferior-packages'."
>    (if (inferior-eval '(defined? 'fold-available-packages)
>                       inferior)
>        (inferior-eval '(fold-available-packages
> -- 
> 2.29.2
>
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#46100: [PATCH 0/4] Memoize inferior package access.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:16:47 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:
>
> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >> I pushed it as 0f20b3fa2050ba6e442e340a204516b9375cd231.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >> I wonder if the other patches improve the situation.  If you run the
> >> same test case with:
> >>
> >>   GUIX_PROFILING=memoization
> >>
> >> what hit rates does it show for these spots?
> >
> > Memoization: 15 tables, 2 non-empty
> >   guix/inferior.scm:438:2:    403 entries, 403 lookups, 0% hits
> >   guix/inferior.scm:392:2:    403 entries, 403 lookups, 0% hits
> >
> > So, I guess we can drop those two patches.
>
> Looks like it.  :-)
>
> Closing!
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
>
> --- End Message ---