Sorry not sure what you mean. Do you suggest I apply the change to use gccgo in the official runtime, even if it is stuck at go 1.10 (the latest is go 1.11) or I drop the idea of providing another runtime that is faster to initialize? Would not be better to release both a gccgo 1.10 and a golang 1.11 instead so I leave the choice to users? The first produces smaller binaries but it is a bit slower and it is stuck to go 1.10, the second is faster but it is slower to initialize because the executable is bigger.-- Michele Sciabarra mich...@sciabarra.com
----- Original message ----- From: David P Grove <gro...@us.ibm.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at init timeDate: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:17:51 -0500 Michele Sciabarra <mich...@sciabarra.com> wrote on 12/11/2018 07:23:14 AM:> > Then I created a variant of the go runtime, using GccGo. GccGo is a > Go compiler, updated to Go version 1.10, that compiles using the Gcc > compiler infrastructure. As a result, it produces dynamically linked > executables that are smaller than the binaries produced by the > standard Go compiler. > ... > > GccGo is a bit slower than Go (but it is still the second faster > runtime) but it is now the faster at init time because the > executable is around 50k (and zipped it is only 17k). > > I am unsure if replace GccGo in the official runtime or provide > both. The fact that the executable is small so it leads to faster > init time I think it is important, but the GccGo compiler it is a > bit behind in term of language support. > My advice is to stick with the official runtime. I think that is betterfor end users. --dave
