Thank you!
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
“On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:54 AM Hunter Herman wrote:
>
> Hi Austin! I’m very curious about the register based calling convention you
> referenced in your email. Could you share more (informal is fine) details?
See https://golang.org/issue/18597 and ht
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:54 AM Hunter Herman wrote:
>
> Hi Austin! I’m very curious about the register based calling convention you
> referenced in your email. Could you share more (informal is fine) details?
See https://golang.org/issue/18597 and https://golang.org/issue/27539.
Ian
--
You
Hi Austin! I’m very curious about the register based calling convention you
referenced in your email. Could you share more (informal is fine) details?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiv
Thanks for that data point, Nick. It's a good idea to make the build fail
if GO386 is set to 387 if we drop support. It already fails if GO386 is set
to any unsupported value, but we could continue to check GO386 even though
there would only be one supported value, and perhaps give a nicer error if
I make a GO386=387 build for rclone, eg
https://github.com/rclone/rclone/issues/437
People love running rclone on ancient computers to rescue data off them I
guess.
This would affect a very small percentage of users and there are always
older versions of rclone they can use so I'm not too both
