Thank you very much Keith, that answers my question :) Le jeudi 18 août 2022 à 18:24:43 UTC+2, k...@google.com a écrit :
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 1:03:22 PM UTC-7 guil.l...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I remember a paper about Go Generics but I cannot find it again. >> It was a scientist paper (with a lot of maths far beyond my understanding >> ^^). >> Title was something like "Lightweigh generics for Go" or something like >> that. >> I believe the background of the website was red (not sure either). >> If someone has the url, please share it :) >> >> In the same idea, I believed the Go Generics solves the "bloating binary" >> issue. If so, I don't understand why I see the "same instructions" at ligne >> 68-71 and at ligne 81-84 in this exemple : >> https://godbolt.org/z/cqY19PT7q. I'm not fluent with assembler but, for >> me there is a bloating there. >> >> Can someone explain it to me ? :) >> > > Go generics takes a step towards fixing the bloating binary issue, > "solved" is too strong a word. > Instead of generating one implementation per instantiation, we generate > one per "instantiation shape". In your example, int and uint must have > different shapes because the > operator requires different code for each of > them (JGE vs JCC). > But if you had > type A int > type B int > then max[A], max[B], and max[int] would all use the same instantiation. > > >> Thanks in advance >> >> -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/fe6ef6a7-51c8-4c18-b5a4-6477e0fb0b33n%40googlegroups.com.
