Petr

> Standard output is now printed to the console only in case of test failure: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=870812&view=logs&j=22fea640-1099-5f32-ec5d-316ad83f359a&t=4607427e-2085-572d-4b25-975ef0413f8f&l=3814 example: That's really cool I think. > This particular test case needs to be...

Do you have a hunch on if it's the same test producing this?

To add a few more links here: - another [nice summary](https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/issues/526#issuecomment-119538743) from @manofstick - places in Optimizer where @dsyme acknowledges this problem: [one](https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/blob/c83adaeb86b800f9b9cad672ece0308aaf4b9eac/src/Compiler/Optimize/Optimizer.fs#L3239-L3242), [two](https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/blob/c83adaeb86b800f9b9cad672ece0308aaf4b9eac/src/Compiler/Optimize/Optimizer.fs#L3332-L3334) - it was attacked and AFAIU...

The example code didn't cause SO on my machine but it still took ages to compile and made the machine unusable for some time. On the other hand, given all...

Hi @EgorBo, so this is an alternative approach to enable PGO, without doing profile generation ourselves. However - this doesn't seem to work so far, as in, benchmarks don't show...

So far I have only tried running published `fsc` against an empty `test.fsx` script. That was enough to show the differece in that other PR with us creating the profile....

@vzarytovskii @EgorBo I'm afraid I don't see any difference in Giraffe compilation either :( it's the same execution time basically.

Will split this into 2 parts, closing this for now.

@DedSec256 thanks for sharing a full(er) picture. The original benchmarks are still useful information since they show how much space for optimization we have here. Thanks for tackling this bit...

@T-Gro PTAL, this is an early stage so I mostly just wanted to discuss the questions I raised in the comments, so that we go in the agreed direction.