5 ms·

Lots of optimized code in Go's standard library has fast paths in assembly which is linked into the final binary on a platform by platform basis. I this sense,

• azakai 14y ago
  Eh? Go doesn't have any capability to include inline assembly, > "There is no facility in the Go programming language to support in-line assembler language code, and there are no plans to do so" http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2951028/is-it-possible-to-include-inline-assembly-in-google-go-code http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2951028/is-it-possible-to... Of course the C parts of Go's standard library have optimized assembly - using C's capability to do. So Go is not easier in any way for dropping into assembly - in fact it's much harder, you can't do it in the language, at best you might be lucky if Go's library does some stuff like that for you.
  • strmpnk 14y ago
    I didn't say inline. I said linked. It's pretty easy to add.
    • azakai 14y ago
      You said "easier than C". How is linking to assembly code from Go any easier than linking to assembly code from C?
      • burntsushi 14y ago
        Just go see how it's done. Look for example at how `math.Exp` is declared: http://golang.org/src/pkg/math/exp.go?s=368:395#L4 http://golang.org/src/pkg/math/exp.go?s=368:395#L4 You'll notice that 'exp' is defined below, using Go. However, 'Exp' is also defined in Assembly. For example, amd64: http://golang.org/src/pkg/math/exp_amd64.s http://golang.org/src/pkg/math/exp_amd64.s This is all compatible with the `go` tool. You just drop in your Assembly, run `go build`, and the appropriate Assembly version is chosen based on your target architecture (or the Go code is used as a fallback if no Assembly for the target architecture exists). I don't have much experience with inlining Assembly in C, but this is pretty damn easy.
        • codygman 14y ago
          That is so awesome, I'm willing to bet they plan on inlining quite a few functions in the future too... which means drastic speedups.
        • lmm 14y ago
          Easy? Sure. Easier than C? Nope. Sounds like it has the equivalent of a few make rules written for you (which is nice, make is a mess, but not really an advantage for go-the-language per se), but you could do exactly the same thing in C - and you can also inline assembly in your C source file.
          • burntsushi 14y ago
            > Sounds like it has the equivalent of a few make rules written for you No. It sounds like the `go` tool is aware of how to compile different pieces of code for different architectures. > but you could do exactly the same thing in C - and you can also inline assembly in your C source file. Why does this make C easier? Does C automatically choose the correct target architecture for every piece of Assembly you write?
            • lmm 14y ago
              >Why does this make C easier? It gives you more options. It makes it more practical to interleave C and assembly at a very granular level, whereas it sounds like you can only do it at the function level or coarser in go. >Does C automatically choose the correct target architecture for every piece of Assembly you write? No. I won't deny that go has a good build system, but I'm more interested in the language.
            • azakai 14y ago
              > Why does this make C easier? Inlining some assembly where you need it - interacting with C variables, etc. - is definitely the most convenient thing. Of course, if you don't want that, you can just put the assembly code in a separate function, also very easy to do with C.
        • azakai 14y ago
      • strmpnk 14y ago
        It allows multiple platforms to be implemented w/o a series of macros.