openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David P Grove" <gro...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at init time
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:46:32 GMT

Sorry.

I mean do not bother providing a gccgo variant of the go runtime.  Stick
with the official golang compiler at 1.11.   I don't see the small speedup
in init time as being enough to justify supporting two variants of go
actions.

--dave


Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com> wrote on 12/11/2018 10:37:56 AM:

> From: Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com>
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 12/11/2018 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster atinit
time
>
> Sorry not sure what you mean. Do you suggest I apply the change to use
> gccgo in the official runtime, even if it is stuck at go 1.10 (the
> latest is go 1.11) or I drop the idea of providing another runtime that
> is faster to initialize? Would not be better to release both a gccgo
> 1.10 and a golang 1.11 instead so I leave the choice to users? The first
> produces smaller binaries but it is a bit slower and it is stuck to go
> 1.10, the second is faster but it is slower to initialize because the
> executable is bigger.--
>   Michele Sciabarra
>   michele@sciabarra.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: David P Grove <groved@us.ibm.com>
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at
> init timeDate: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:17:51 -0500
>
> Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com> wrote on 12/11/2018
> 07:23:14 AM:>
> > Then I created a variant of the go runtime, using GccGo.  GccGo is a
> > Go compiler, updated to Go version 1.10, that compiles using the Gcc
> > compiler infrastructure. As a result, it produces dynamically linked
> > executables that are smaller than the binaries produced by the
> > standard Go compiler.
> > ...
> >
> > GccGo is a bit slower than Go (but it is still the second faster
> > runtime) but it is now the faster at init time because the
> > executable is around 50k (and zipped it is only 17k).
> >
> > I am unsure if replace GccGo in the official runtime or provide
> > both. The fact that the executable is small so it leads to faster
> > init time I think it is important, but the  GccGo compiler it is a
> > bit behind in term of language support.
> >
>
> My advice is to stick with the official runtime.  I think that is
> betterfor end users.
>
> --dave
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message