mirror of
				https://github.com/golang/go.git
				synced 2025-10-31 00:30:57 +00:00 
			
		
		
		
	 1d5af1553c
			
		
	
	
		1d5af1553c
		
	
	
	
	
		
			
			Moved a couple of FAQs from the main FAQ, and added some others R=r, rsc, iant, gri CC=golang-dev https://golang.org/cl/218070
		
			
				
	
	
		
			271 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			7.6 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			HTML
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			271 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>
 | |
| 
 |