mirror of
https://github.com/golang/go
synced 2024-11-14 14:30:23 -07:00
272 lines
7.6 KiB
HTML
272 lines
7.6 KiB
HTML
|
<!-- Programming FAQ -->
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Pointers">Pointers and Allocation</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="pass_by_value">
|
||
|
When are function paramters passed by value?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Everything in Go is passed by value. A function always gets a copy of the
|
||
|
thing being passed, as if there were an assignment statement assigning the
|
||
|
value to the parameter. For instance, copying a pointer value makes a copy of
|
||
|
the pointer, not the data it points to.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Map and slice values behave like pointers; they are descriptors that
|
||
|
contain pointers to the underlying map or slice data. Copying a map or
|
||
|
slice value doesn't copy the data it points to. Copying an interface value
|
||
|
makes a copy of the thing stored in the interface value. If the interface
|
||
|
value holds a struct, copying the interface value makes a copy of the
|
||
|
struct. If the interface value holds a pointer, copying the interface value
|
||
|
makes a copy of the pointer, but again not the data it points to.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="methods_on_values_or_pointers">
|
||
|
Should I define methods on values or pointers?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<pre>
|
||
|
func (s *MyStruct) someMethod() { } // method on pointer
|
||
|
func (s MyStruct) someMethod() { } // method on value
|
||
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
When defining a method on a type, the receiver (<code>s</code> in the above
|
||
|
example) behaves exactly is if it were an argument to the method. Define the
|
||
|
method on a pointer type if you need the method to modify the data the receiver
|
||
|
points to. Otherwise, it is often cleaner to define the method on a value type.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="new_and_make">
|
||
|
What's the difference between new and make?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
In short: <code>new</code> allocates memory, <code>make</code> initializes
|
||
|
the slice, map, and channel types.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
See the <a href="/doc/effective_go.html#allocation_new">relevant section
|
||
|
of Effective Go</a> for more details.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="64bit_machine_32bit_int">
|
||
|
Why is <code>int</code> 32 bits on 64 bit machines?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
The size of <code>int</code> and <code>float</code> is implementation-specific.
|
||
|
The 64 bit Go compilers (both 6g and gccgo) use a 32 bit representation for
|
||
|
both <code>int</code> and <code>float</code>. Code that relies on a particular
|
||
|
size of value should use an explicitly sized type, like <code>int64</code> or
|
||
|
<code>float64</code>.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Concurrent_programming">Concurrent programming</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="What_operations_are_atomic_What_about_mutexes">
|
||
|
What operations are atomic? What about mutexes?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
We haven't fully defined it all yet, but some details about atomicity are
|
||
|
available in the <a href="go_mem.html">Go Memory Model specification</a>.
|
||
|
Also, some concurrency questions are answered in more detail in the <a
|
||
|
href="go_lang_faq.html">language design FAQ</a>.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Regarding mutexes, the <a href="/pkg/sync">sync</a>
|
||
|
package implements them, but we hope Go programming style will
|
||
|
encourage people to try higher-level techniques. In particular, consider
|
||
|
structuring your program so that only one goroutine at a time is ever
|
||
|
responsible for a particular piece of data.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Do not communicate by sharing memory. Instead, share memory by communicating.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Why_no_multi_CPU">
|
||
|
Why doesn't my multi-goroutine program use multiple CPUs?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Under the gc compilers you must set <code>GOMAXPROCS</code> to allow the
|
||
|
runtime to utilise more than one OS thread. Under <code>gccgo</code> an OS
|
||
|
thread will be created for each goroutine, and <code>GOMAXPROCS</code> is
|
||
|
effectively equal to the number of running goroutines.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Programs that perform concurrent computation should benefit from an increase in
|
||
|
<code>GOMAXPROCS</code>. (See the <a
|
||
|
href="http://golang.org/pkg/runtime/#GOMAXPROCS">runtime package
|
||
|
documentation</a>.)
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Why_GOMAXPROCS">
|
||
|
Why does using <code>GOMAXPROCS</code> > 1 sometimes make my program
|
||
|
slower?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
(This is specific to the gc compilers. See above.)
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
It depends on the nature of your program.
|
||
|
Programs that contain several goroutines that spend a lot of time
|
||
|
communicating on channels will experience performance degradation when using
|
||
|
multiple OS threads. This is because of the significant context-switching
|
||
|
penalty involved in sending data between threads.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
The Go runtime's scheduler is not as good as it needs to be. In future, it
|
||
|
should recognise such cases and optimize its use of OS threads. For now,
|
||
|
<code>GOMAXPROCS</code> should be set on a per-application basis.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Closures">Closures</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="closures_and_goroutines">
|
||
|
Why am I confused by the way my closures behave as goroutines?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Some confusion may arise when using closures with concurrency.
|
||
|
Consider the following program:
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<pre>
|
||
|
func main() {
|
||
|
done := make(chan bool)
|
||
|
|
||
|
values = []string{ "a", "b", "c" }
|
||
|
for _, v := range values {
|
||
|
go func() {
|
||
|
fmt.Println(v)
|
||
|
done <- true
|
||
|
}()
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
|
||
|
// wait for all goroutines to complete before exiting
|
||
|
for i := range values {
|
||
|
<-done
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
One might mistakenly expect to see <code>a, b, c</code> as the output.
|
||
|
What you'll probably see instead is <code>c, c, c</code>. This is because
|
||
|
each closure shares the same variable <code>v</code>. Each closure prints the
|
||
|
value of <code>v</code> at the time <code>fmt.Println</code> is executed,
|
||
|
rather than the value of <code>v</code> when the goroutine was launched.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
To bind the value of <code>v</code> to each closure as they are launched, one
|
||
|
could modify the inner loop to read:
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<pre>
|
||
|
for _, v := range values {
|
||
|
go func(<b>u</b>) {
|
||
|
fmt.Println(<b>u</b>)
|
||
|
done <- true
|
||
|
}(<b>v</b>)
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
In this example, the value of <code>v</code> is passed as an argument to the
|
||
|
anonymous function. That value is then accessible inside the function as
|
||
|
the variable <code>u</code>.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Control_flow">Control flow</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form">
|
||
|
Does Go have the <code>?:</code> operator?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
There is no ternary form in Go. You may use the following to achieve the same
|
||
|
result:
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<pre>
|
||
|
if expr {
|
||
|
n = trueVal
|
||
|
} else {
|
||
|
n = falseVal
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Packages_Testing">Packages and Testing</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_do_I_create_a_multifile_package">
|
||
|
How do I create a multifile package?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Put all the source files for the package in a directory by themselves.
|
||
|
Source files can refer to items from different files at will; there is
|
||
|
no need for forward declarations or a header file.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Other than being split into multiple files, the package will compile and test
|
||
|
just like a single-file package.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_do_I_write_a_unit_test">
|
||
|
How do I write a unit test?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Create a new file ending in <code>_test.go</code> in the same directory
|
||
|
as your package sources. Inside that file, <code>import "testing"</code>
|
||
|
and write functions of the form
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<pre>
|
||
|
func TestFoo(t *testing.T) {
|
||
|
...
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Run <code>gotest</code> in that directory.
|
||
|
That script finds the <code>Test</code> functions,
|
||
|
builds a test binary, and runs it.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Data_structures">Data Structures</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="nested_array_verbose"
|
||
|
>Why does the syntax for nested array literals seem overly verbose?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
In Go, you must specify a 2-dimensional array literal like this:
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<pre>
|
||
|
var intArray = [4][4]int{
|
||
|
[4]int{1, 2, 3, 4},
|
||
|
[4]int{2, 4, 8, 16},
|
||
|
[4]int{3, 9, 27, 81},
|
||
|
[4]int{4, 16, 64, 256},
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
It seems that the <code>[4]int</code> could be inferred, but in general it's
|
||
|
hard to get this sort of thing right.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Some of Go's designers had worked on other languages that derived types
|
||
|
automatically in such expressions, but the special cases that arise can
|
||
|
be messy, especially when interfaces, nil, constant conversions, and
|
||
|
such are involved. It seemed better to require the full type
|
||
|
information. That way there will be no surprises.
|
||
|
</p>
|
||
|
|