Re: [go-nuts] Re: Can we suggest to the GC that I think this memory can be reclaimed?

With Go there is no possibility of use after free unless you use unsafe calls. On Sep 16, 2024, at 10:47 AM, Kevin Chowski wrote:In particular, since Go has a goal of avoiding use-after-free bugs, the GC would have to do the same validation it is doing anyway to double-check that the caller is no

[go-nuts] Re: Can we suggest to the GC that I think this memory can be reclaimed?

In particular, since Go has a goal of avoiding use-after-free bugs, the GC would have to do the same validation it is doing anyway to double-check that the caller is not wrong. On Saturday, September 14, 2024 at 10:55:49 AM UTC-6 Frederik Zipp wrote: > Yes, by no longer holding a reference to i

Re: [go-nuts] go test cache: include umask as a test input for caching?

Why can't it be set within subtests? Note that subtests (like regular tests) aren't run in parallel unless you explicitly call t.Parallel(). On Friday, September 13, 2024 at 6:35:15 PM UTC-4 twp...@gmail.com wrote: > > Personally, I would approach this kind of thing by writing a test that > sets

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Code coverage but only for new lines

On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 03:16:28AM -0700, Fulton Shaw wrote: > Take a look at https://github.com/xhd2015/xgo#incremental-coverage > > Example incremental code coverage:  > https://github.com/xhd2015/xgo/blob/master/ > doc/img/coverage.jpg Thanks but I don't know how to run it, I get: git di