Is this to avoid stack growing to fast if there are some stack allocations
intervening with each other?
On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 12:39:17 AM UTC-4 tapi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> package main
>
> import "testing"
>
> var s33 = []byte{32: 'b'}
>
> var a = string(s33)
>
> func main() {
> x
The code:
package concat
import (
"testing"
)
var s33 = []byte{32: 'b'}
var a = string(s33)
func Benchmark_e_33(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
_ = a + a // a + a does not escape
}
}
"go test -gcflags=-m" shows: a + a does not escape
but "go test -bench=.
I appreciate the whole discussion, it was really insightful. Since Golang
is not my first language, I had a preconceived notion about key-value pair
initialization.
Here I would like to disagree with the syntax, it would be good that with
the innovation in the language, the general idea of an
package main
import "testing"
var s33 = []byte{32: 'b'}
var a = string(s33)
func main() {
x := a + a // a + a does not escape
println(x)
}
func Benchmark_e_33(b *testing.B) {
var x string
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
x = a + a // a + a escapes to heap
}
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 4:31 PM 'Dan Kortschak' wrote:
> Yes, trivial examples also exist.
I thought one possible reason was `http#Response.Body` [1], because if
a response contains `Content-Encoding: gzip`, then Go will
automatically wrap the Body in a `gzip.Reader`. If that was the case,
then a
Hi all,
I've been struggling a lot to replicate a C++ code that uses
*WinVerifyTrustEx* function in go and I've found a discrepancy between the
*WTD_STATEACTION_VERIFY* value defined in the file types_windows.go
That creates a slice 101 integers long, which probably isn't what you
meant, which might help explain why you never came across it before.
Smile.
-rob
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 7:07 AM jake...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I'm surprised that I have never come across this as a way to create a
> slice with
On Tue, 2021-06-22 at 12:45 -0500, Steven Penny wrote:
> Thanks for the help, but I found a much simpler example:
>
> https://play.golang.org/p/EcitH-85X6S
Yes, trivial examples also exist.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To
I'm surprised that I have never come across this as a way to create a slice
with an initial length:
x := []int{100:0}
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:43:17 PM UTC-4 axel.wa...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Oh and also:
>
> Likewise, I think this only works for array literals; I don’t think
>>
If anyone finds this, here is a proof of
concept: https://github.com/pelletier/go-bb.
--
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
I'm afraid the question isn't related to the Go programming language at
all. It's related to the operating system you're running on - which as far
as I can see, you haven't mentioned. It's whatever the underlying system
calls and TCP stack do.
On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 16:40:16 UTC+1
If you are familiar with C99’s designated initializers, this is similar but
less general
and less confusing.
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please help me to understand the following syntax mentioned in the Golang
> language specification document.
>
>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 6:52 PM 'Dan Kortschak' wrote:
> https://play.golang.org/p/gwDnxVSQEM4
Thanks for the help, but I found a much simpler example:
https://play.golang.org/p/EcitH-85X6S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To
On Jun 22, 2021, at 12:42, Axel Wagner wrote:
>
>
> Oh and also:
>
>> Likewise, I think this only works for array literals; I don’t think (though
>> again have not tried it) that you can declare slice literals with only
>> selected members initialized.
>
> Works fine too:
Oh and also:
Likewise, I think this only works for array literals; I don’t think (though
> again have not tried it) that you can declare slice literals with only
> selected members initialized.
Works fine too: https://play.golang.org/p/ANw54ShkTvY :)
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:41 PM Axel Wagner
>
> (I assume with a runtime rather than a compiler error, but I haven’t tried
> it)
Nope, compiler catches the overflow: https://play.golang.org/p/taorqygqxFz
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:39 PM David Riley wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 11:39, Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Please help me
On Jun 22, 2021, at 11:39, Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please help me to understand the following syntax mentioned in the Golang
> language specification document.
>
> https://golang.org/ref/spec#Composite_literals
>
> following is the search string for CTRL + F
> // vowels[ch] is
It's in the section you link to:
The key is interpreted as a field name for struct literals*, an index for
> array and slice literals*, and a key for map literals.
(emphasis mine). The syntax allows you to specify keys for arrays and
slices and interprets them as indices. Rune-literals (like
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 5:40 PM Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
> https://golang.org/ref/spec#Composite_literals
>
> following is the search string for CTRL + F
> // vowels[ch] is true if ch is a vowel \
>
> Following declaration and initialization is confusing.
> vowels := [128]bool{'a': true, 'e': true,
Hi,
Please help me to understand the following syntax mentioned in the Golang
language specification document.
https://golang.org/ref/spec#Composite_literals
following is the search string for CTRL + F
// vowels[ch] is true if ch is a vowel \
Following declaration and initialization is
Written one TCP client which is used to create 10 TCP concurrent
connections(holding for logger time) and enable only 10 ephemeral ports to
use(49001 - 49010 ip_local_port_range file).
func createConnection(c int, desAddr, desPort string) (brokerCon net.Conn,
err error) {
localips :=
With a 500k machine cluster I suggest getting professional Go support - someone
experienced in troubleshooting that can sit with you and review the code and
configuration to diagnose the issue.
Personally it sounds like overallicated machines causing thrashing delays in
the context switching.
Sorry for a mistake: 'hyperthread closed', hyperthread is actually on.
在2021年6月22日星期二 UTC+8 下午10:01:48 写道：
> I just checked the monitor data and found that the machine suffered from
> high 'load average'(about 30+) at approximately the time the agent get
> stuck.
> A 24 cores(2 CPUs * 14
I just checked the monitor data and found that the machine suffered from
high 'load average'(about 30+) at approximately the time the agent get
stuck.
A 24 cores(2 CPUs * 14 cores), hyperthread closed machine with load average
over 30 seems bad. But after the load average got down to below 1,
>
> He is stating he has a cloud cluster consisting of 500k machines - each
> machine runs an agent process - each agent has 7000 Go routines.
>
Aha. Yes, this is what I mean.
> Sorry, now I am completely confused.
>
> So, you have about 500,000 *processes *running this agent on each
>>>
The benchmark code: https://play.golang.org/p/qp6wQgqcHKW
The result:
Benchmark_CompareWithSwitch0Bytes-4328873778 3.619
ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
Benchmark_CompareWithSwitch32Bytes-4 175067815 6.251
ns/op 0 B/op 0
He is stating he has a cloud cluster consisting of 500k machines - each machine
runs an agent process - each agent has 7000 Go routines.
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 7:07 AM, jake...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, now I am completely confused.
>
>>> So, you have about 500,000 processes running
Sorry, now I am completely confused.
So, you have about 500,000 *processes *running this agent on each machine,
>> and each process has around 7,000 gorouines? Is that correct?
>>
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
>
but then you say: "Only one process per machine".
Is there a language
Only one process per machine. We use '*taskset -c
$last_2nd_core,$last_3rd_core,$last_4th_core ./agent -c ../conf/agent.toml*'
to start the agent. I wonder if it has any relationship with this problem ?
在2021年6月22日星期二 UTC+8 上午12:56:13 写道：
> How many processes per machine? It seems like
https://xkcd.com/386/
:-)
On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 07:19:19 UTC+1 axel.wa...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 1:23 AM Steven Penny wrote:
>
>> OK, so all all these decades of experience, why cant anyone produce a
>> small
>> program to demonstrate the problem?
>
>
> I must
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 1:23 AM Steven Penny wrote:
> OK, so all all these decades of experience, why cant anyone produce a small
> program to demonstrate the problem?
I must say, I'm impressed by Dan taking the time to actually provide one.
My answer to this would have been: Because we would
31 matches
Mail list logo
