TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

“This change deletes the C implementations of the Go compiler and assembler”

306 点作者 osw超过 10 年前

15 条评论

justincormack超过 10 年前
So what is the bootstrap process going to be? Other than already have a Go compiler I mean. Or is it have a Go cross compiler?<p>Maybe it matters less, you used to always assume bootstrap from C but that more or less died with C++ based compilers, although you can do a multistage bootstrap from the last gcc before C++ still.
评论 #9097645 未加载
评论 #9097635 未加载
评论 #9098508 未加载
评论 #9098283 未加载
评论 #9098400 未加载
arcticbull超过 10 年前
I still just don&#x27;t understand why they insist on building their own toolchain. It just doesn&#x27;t make sense to me.<p>When you set out to build a programming language, what is your objective? To create a sweet new optimizer? To create a sweet new assembler? A sweet new intermediate representation? AST? Of course not. You set out to change the way programmers tell computers what to do.<p>So why do this insist on duplicating: (1) An intermediate representation. (2) An optimizer. (3) An assembler. (4) A linker.<p>And they didn&#x27;t innovate in any of those areas. All those problems were solved with LLVM (and to some more difficult to interact with extent GCC). So why solve them again?<p>It&#x27;s like saying you want to build a new car to get from SF to LA and starting by building your own roads. Why would you not focus on what you bring to the table: A cool new [compiler] front-end language. Leave turning that into bits to someone who brings innovation to that space.<p>This is more of a genuine question.
评论 #9099105 未加载
评论 #9098650 未加载
评论 #9099114 未加载
评论 #9098784 未加载
评论 #9098857 未加载
ngoldbaum超过 10 年前
Wow, github doesn&#x27;t handle big diffs well. Some sort of automatic pagination would really help.
评论 #9098019 未加载
评论 #9098567 未加载
评论 #9097665 未加载
评论 #9097901 未加载
brandonwamboldt超过 10 年前
Congrats to the Go team, but that link kills the browser....
评论 #9097775 未加载
Animats超过 10 年前
Nice. That&#x27;s a step forward. Another bit of legacy code bites the dust. Another step forward to the post-C world we need.<p>(If you want to compile with a different compiler as a check, there&#x27;s an LLVM-based compiler for Go.)
评论 #9098586 未加载
bketelsen超过 10 年前
RSC is awesome.
smegel超过 10 年前
And the boy pulled up his bootstraps and became a man.
Vecrios超过 10 年前
So, if I&#x27;m understanding this correctly, they are to re-write the Go compiler in Go, and compile it using the currently published compiler (i.e. 1.4)?<p>Could someone, kindly, explain how future versions would be built? Thanks!
评论 #9098632 未加载
评论 #9098603 未加载
tbolt超过 10 年前
So this means the go compiler is completely written in go?
评论 #9098638 未加载
joeld42超过 10 年前
congrats gophers! That&#x27;s a big step for the language.
davidrusu超过 10 年前
Anyone else seeing this post as the 1st and 2nd link on the front page of HN?
评论 #9097781 未加载
评论 #9097716 未加载
评论 #9097691 未加载
评论 #9097693 未加载
评论 #9097738 未加载
评论 #9097731 未加载
评论 #9097734 未加载
评论 #9097689 未加载
评论 #9097787 未加载
评论 #9097726 未加载
评论 #9097695 未加载
评论 #9097687 未加载
评论 #9097780 未加载
pjmlp超过 10 年前
Great news!
gresrun超过 10 年前
Once you go Go, you never Go back!
评论 #9097638 未加载
bcantrill超过 10 年前
One does wonder if the register re-naming from their abstract (but misleading) names to their proper machine names (e.g., from &quot;SP&quot; to &quot;R13&quot;) wasn&#x27;t at all a reaction to the (in)famous polemic on the golang build chain.[1]<p>[1] <a href="http://dtrace.org/blogs/wesolows/2014/12/29/golang-is-trash/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dtrace.org&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;wesolows&#x2F;2014&#x2F;12&#x2F;29&#x2F;golang-is-trash&#x2F;</a>
评论 #9098130 未加载
评论 #9097764 未加载
评论 #9097820 未加载
评论 #9097925 未加载
davexunit超过 10 年前
Here we go again. <i>Another</i> compiler that can&#x27;t be bootstrapped from source code. It&#x27;s a packaging nightmare. Another magic binary to trust not to have a Thompson virus.
评论 #9098371 未加载