On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:47:50 PM UTC-7, Bakul Shah wrote:
> There seem to be many chess related packages:
> https://golanglibs.com/top?q=chess
>
I'll look into these --- thanks --- I was not aware of this golanglibs
website.
--
You received this message because you are subs
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 18:35:34 -0800 hughaguila...@gmail.com wrote:
hughaguila...@gmail.com writes:
>
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:54:44 PM UTC-7, Bakul Shah wrote:
> >
> > You should consider writing a chess program from scratch. It could be a
> > lot of fun!
> >
> > If you start with a matu
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:54:44 PM UTC-7, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> You should consider writing a chess program from scratch. It could be a
> lot of fun!
>
> If you start with a mature chess playing engine, you wouldn't learn as
> much and you would spend time fighting/interfacing with the e
You should consider writing a chess program from scratch. It could be a lot of
fun!
If you start with a mature chess playing engine, you wouldn't learn as much and
you would spend time fighting/interfacing with the engine. Since your chess is
not quite the same as a regular chess, you may find
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 4:45:39 PM UTC-7, matthe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hugh,
>
> Go is a general purpose programming language that is open source and
> permissively licensed, and there is no obvious reason for Google or other
> contributors to change this. I strongly recommend it for y
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, wrote:
>
> Here’s an explanation behind my assumptions about Go:
>
> Recently I encountered a crash in the latest stable version of Go that
> blocked my development and was root caused to a mistake in how pointers are
> handled as map keys by the runtime. The fix w
Here's the golang-nuts topic and it has a link to the github issue:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/7lcongdGOMM
The fix code is quite involved in the map implementation.
Matt
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:52:24 PM UTC-6, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
>
> > Recently I encounte
> Recently I encountered a crash in the latest stable version of Go that
> blocked my development and was root caused to a mistake in how pointers are
> handled as map keys by the runtime.
can you share this bug? perhaps by making it more visible we can, as a
team, solve any nascent dependancies o
Hugh,
Go is a general purpose programming language that is open source and
permissively licensed, and there is no obvious reason for Google or other
contributors to change this. I strongly recommend it for your project,
although Clownfish is a robust existing project. Maybe I’ll have a mature
just announced this week at re:invent. also cloud 9 the new dev ide also
supports go.
In case anyone cares ^^^
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to g
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Derek Brown wrote:
>
> Is it possible to use the visual studio compiler for cgo instead of gcc?
> If not, is there a project underway? If not, can someone point me to
> how I might contribute such a thing?
It's not possible today, as cgo assumes that certain optio
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:38 AM, wrote:
>
> Go will throw an error when a variable isnt 'used' ( which is often the case
> when developing ), but will not throw errors if the code has unnecessary
> loops, logical errors, or other more serious problems. This does not make
> the code better, nor the
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Ugorji Nwoke wrote:
>
> Yes. Fundamentally, I'm asking if step #2 in your calling sequence can be
> optimized.
>
> 1. load a function pointer from the itab
> 2. call the function pointer. However, if the function pointer to is empty,
> just do a NOP here and skip t
This would add a branch to the interface dispatch semantics, and while the
branch is probably predictable, it would increase the size of every call
site. Some benchmarking would be needed to demonstrate that the branch is
less costly than a jump and immediate return sequence.
The correct answer
I don’t have specific knowledge about how this works - but wouldn’t it be
fairly easy to test by having the compiler emit the assembly code?
--
Michael Banzon
https://michaelbanzon.com/
> Den 1. dec. 2017 kl. 19.42 skrev Ugorji Nwoke :
>
> Thanks Ian.
>
> This is not so much about de-virtu
go get -u github.com/alexbyk/ftest
import (
"testing"
"github.com/alexbyk/ftest"
)
func TestFoo(t *testing.T) {
ftest.New(t).Eq(2, 2).
Contains("FooBarBaz", "Bar").
PanicsSubstr(func() { panic("Foo") }, "Foo")
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
Go is an open-source language. It's not "tied" to anything. Yes, Google
invests in its development but so do other companies and many, many open
source developers. It has a strong place in modern data centers but it is
being used in just about every place imaginable now; some have even done
kernel
Yes. Fundamentally, I'm asking if step #2 in your calling sequence can be
optimized.
1. load a function pointer from the itab
2. call the function pointer. *However, if the function pointer to is
empty, just do a NOP here and skip the function-call-dance. This should be
possible as the i-tab
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Ugorji Nwoke wrote:
>
> This is not so much about de-virtualization. It's about not making a call to
> an empty function i.e. I expect that interface calls come down to
> 1. dereference the pointer to the i-tab,
> 2. jump to the appropriate function in the i-tab,
>
I did, but couldn't infer my answer out of the assembly. I see the
following below, but it's not clear if the call is made, or if the linker
does some optimization after the compiler step. See below:
"".T1.Do STEXT nosplit size=1 args=0x8 locals=0x0
0x 0 (check-interface-noop-call.go:15) T
Hi -
I know this has been asked before, but I can't find a recent answer.
Is it possible to use the visual studio compiler for cgo instead of gcc?
If not, is there a project underway? If not, can someone point me to
how I might contribute such a thing?
Thanks
--
You received this message be
Go will throw an error when a variable isnt 'used' ( which is often the
case when developing ), but will not throw errors if the code has unnecessary
loops, logical errors, or other more serious problems. This does not make
the code better, nor the coder magically reflect on how their code can b
Thanks Ian.
This is not so much about de-virtualization. It's about not making a call
to an empty function i.e. I expect that interface calls come down to
1. dereference the pointer to the i-tab,
2. jump to the appropriate function in the i-tab,
3. call that function.
If that function is a n
Specifically, I wanted to see heap allocations generated by incoming
requests, so I can optimize my handler functions
I will write a more basic webserver example to see if I can produce the
result I am expecting
Am Donnerstag, 30. November 2017 14:39:56 UTC+1 schrieb Karan Chaudhary:
>
> Attach
On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 7:41:24 AM UTC-7, matthe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't speak for the language developers but as far as I can tell Go is
> always going to be tied to Google's business of datacenter-based network
> and web services, so if you want your game as something other tha
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Ugorji Nwoke wrote:
>
> I know that a no-op function call is optimized away, as it is inlined to
> nothing.
>
> However, what about a no-op interface call?
>
> See sample code:
>
> type I interface { Do(int) }
> type T1 struct{}
> func (_ T1) Do(i int) {}
> func mai
The code isn't licensed for use (please don't modify it for your variation)
but it's posted on github publicly, feel free to read my HTTP server with
database backend for inspiration of how such a thing could
work: https://github.com/pciet/wichess
There's a web client that works on smartphones
TCP doesn't preserve message delimiters. There is no guarantee that one
write will be one read on the remote side even if they appear to be reading
and writing in lockstep.
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-8, Justin Israel wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:00 PM <28911...@g
I know that a no-op function call is optimized away, as it is inlined to
nothing.
However, what about a no-op interface call?
See sample code:
type I interface { Do(int) }
type T1 struct{}
func (_ T1) Do(i int) {}
func main() {
var v I
v = T1{}
v.Do(1)
}
Is it safe to assume the following tha
If you know keys distribution, you may first split data on N non-intersecting
buckets, where N is number of CPU cores, and then use Sort on each bucket in
parallel.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
30 matches
Mail list logo
