On a Mac with go version 1.9.3 with a GOPATH=$HOME/go with the subdirs
src, pkg, and bin, I ran:
go get golang.org/x/tools/present
The source was downloaded and present.a was downloaded into
$GOPATH/pkg/darwin_amd64/golang.org/x/tools. But, no executable in
$GOPATH/bin. There is no change e
All this is true.
But I expect that one of these fine days, someone sueable is going to ship
software with a serious bug, and are going to get sued and lose because
(i) there’s a lot of money
and
(ii) it’s well known in the art that doing X is just bloody stupid, and you did
X.
And then the qua
r golang-nuts@googlegroups.com - 18 updates in 9 topics
> <http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/t/805f985eaed6749c?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
>
> Pete Wilson : May 13 10:28PM -0500
>
> All this is true.
> But I expect that one of these fine days, s
quot;}}, and "_id": bson.M{"$distance"}. I have
tried changing
them to
{"$unwind": "$ipv4Addresses"}, and
bson.M{"_id": "$distance"}
but it not working.
On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 3:49:06 PM UTC+3, daniel wilson w
I needed this a while back, for both JSON and XML.
JSON was the easy part =)
Here's my repo for an XML prettifier https://github.com/juztin/xmlfmt
* (ignore the install directions in my readme, the domain is wrong)*You
can install it via:
go get install https://github.com/juztin/xmlfmt
Then j
>>I fail to see the purpose of client-side hashing.
Great question
You pass a UUID from the server to salt your crypto on the client to
prevent replay attacks.
We don't always run TLS on our dev/test tiers and operate a sensitive
environment in which we prefer not to broadcast passwords in
comes one of serial temporary advantage.” — Navigating
> the Dozens of Different Strategy Options
> <https://hbr.org/2015/06/navigating-the-dozens-of-different-strategy-options>
> (HBR)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups &
Folks
I have code in C which implements a form of discrete event simulator, but
optimised for a clocked system in which most objects accept input on the
positive edge of a simulated clock, do their appropriate internal
computations, and store the result internally. On the negative edge of the
c
'. Unfortunately I
wasn’t very good at writing compilers and the tool was… unstable]
— P
> On Jan 14, 2021, at 9:33 AM, David Riley wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2021, at 7:21 PM, Peter Wilson wrote:
>> So, after a long ramble, given that I am happy to waste CPU time in busy
>> w
Only because I had started out my explanation in a prior thought trying to use
’naked’ read and write atomic fences, and having exactly 3 (main, t0, t1)
exposed all that needed to be exposed of the problem.
Yes, if this scales, there will be more goroutines than 3.
> On Jan 13, 2021, at 9:58 PM,
I have decided to believe that scheduling overhead is minimal, and only
customize if this is untrue for my workload.
[I don’t like customizing. Stuff in the standard library has been built by folk
who have done this in anger, and the results have been widely used; plus
principle of least surpris
N in this case will be similar to the value of GOMAXPROCS, on the assumption
that scaling that far pays off.
I would love to have the problem of having a 128 core computer…. (Though then
if scaling tops out at 32 cores one simply runs 4 experiments..)
— P
> On Jan 13, 2021, at 10:31 PM, Rober
Gentlepersons
I asked for advice on how to handle a problem a few days ago, and have
constructed a testbed of what I need to do, using WaitGroups in what seems to
be a standard manner.
But the code fails and I don’t understand why.
The (simple version of) the code is at https://play.golang.org
t; Context on one-shot structs - 1 Update
> <>Waitgroup problem
> <http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/t/397c0fe3def54987?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
>
> Pete Wilson : Jan 16 10:28AM -0600
>
> Gentlepersons
>
> I asked for
Brian
Thanks for advice. I’ll take a look
— P
> On Jan 16, 2021, at 5:23 PM, golang-nuts@googlegroups.com wrote:
>
> Brian Candler mailto:b.cand...@pobox.com>>: Jan 16
> 01:02PM -0800
>
> On Saturday, 16 January 2021 at 16:28:59 UTC Pete Wilson wrote:
>
> &g
he scheduler revived them. Scheduler
thing, not clock thing.
>
> You can restructure this to avoid the race. You should Add() to to the stage
> 1 and 2 wait groups after the Wait() returns and before you Wait() on the
> stage 2.
>
>> On Jan 16, 2021, at 6:05 PM, Pete
t;
>> On Jan 16, 2021, at 7:35 PM, Pete Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
WARNING / LEGAL TEXT: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which
is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from di
The problem is that N or so channel communications twice per simulated clock
seems to take much longer than the time spent doing useful work.
go isn’t designed for this sort of work, so it’s not a complaint to note it’s
not as good as I’d like it to be. But the other problem is that processors
That’s exactly the plan.
The idea is to simulate perhaps the workload of a complete chiplet. That might
be (assuming no SIMD in the processors to keep the example light) 2K cores.
Each worklet is perhaps 25-50 nsec (worklet = work done for one core) for each
simulated core
The simplest mechan
I’d observed that, experimentally, but I don’t think it’s guaranteed behaviour
:-(
> On Jan 17, 2021, at 10:07 AM, Robert Engels wrote:
>
> If you use GOMAXPROCS as a subset of physical cores and have the same number
> of routines you can busy wait in a similar fashion.
>
WARNING / LEGAL
Yes, that is possible.
The simulated cores are already generated functions in C.
It’s my experience that if you can leverage an existing concurrency framework
then life is better for everyone; go’s is fairly robust, so this is an
experiment to see how close I can get. A real simulation system has
ched. What is the issue of using an array in Go? Even a global one, *IF*
> > suited to the task at hand and dishing the work out to workers with a
> > scheme a
> > little more complex than odd, even etc. as required?
>
> Go arrays are perfectly usable. My comment had m
ate some other options
> to try.
>
> On Jan 18, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Pete Wilson wrote:
>
> No need to beg forgiveness.
>
>
> For me, the issue is the synchronisation, not how the collection is
> specified.
> You’re right; there’s no reason why a slice (or an array) co
I more naturally think of it ('All lives matter) as an emotional or
philosophical statement.
I feel it is absurd and harmful for sloganeering - especially
'language-engineered' sloganeering along the lines of 'have you stopped
beating your wife yet?' - to be promoted on a technical page ; I am
I've heard several times from members of the community (on Matrix and
possibly on answers) that a simple iteration like
const mixed = "\b5Ὂg̀9! ℃ᾭG"
for _, c := range mixed {
... do something with c (but not write to it)
will actually silently allocate a slice of runes and decode the st
On 4/12/21 11:31 AM, Jan Mercl wrote:
I believe no silent allocation and no conversion to a slice of runes
occurs. A single instance of variable c, of type rune, exists within
the loop. There's no problem with modifying 'c'. A problem exists if
the _address_ of 'c' is assumed to point to differen
Back in the days of transputers and occam, there was a desire to be able to
manage all interesting events in a system in a within-language (language
being occam) manner.
Interrupts were a problem, because you can't describe interrupts as
implemented by microprocessors (steal the PC and jump some
Coming here also trying to build gollvm master branch with the same above
failure, suggesting that this info and the pinned commits should probably
end up in the project's README.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 1:05:31 AM UTC+11 Than McIntosh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The gollvm build with LLVM tip
28 matches
Mail list logo
