Go 1.12.1 and Go 1.11.6 are released

783 views
Skip to first unread message

Katie Hockman

unread,
Mar 14, 2019, 5:13:07 PM3/14/19
to golan...@googlegroups.com
Hello gophers,

We have just released Go versions 1.12.1 and 1.11.6, minor point releases.

These releases include fixes to cgo, the compiler, the go command,
and the fmt, net/smtp, os, path/filepath, sync, and template packages.

View the release notes for more information:
    https://golang.org/doc/devel/release.html#go1.12.minor

You can download binary and source distributions from the Go web site:
    https://golang.org/dl/

To compile from source using a Git clone, update to the release with
"git checkout go1.12.1" and build as usual.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release.

Cheers,
Katie for the Go team

Guanhua Jiang

unread,
Mar 14, 2019, 8:39:12 PM3/14/19
to Katie Hockman, golan...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the note! Was hoping `math/pi` package to have been added on this date! :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-announ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Serhat Şevki Dinçer

unread,
Mar 17, 2019, 4:45:54 PM3/17/19
to golang-nuts
Hi,

I see a regression on speed with sorty tests (go test -short -gcflags '-B -s' -ldflags '-s -w') on my Intel Core i5-4210M laptop (also sortutil became faster, zermelo float became much slower):

with go 1.12.1

Sorting uint32
sortutil took 18.64s
zermelo took 10.92s
sorty-2 took 17.10s
sorty-3 took 14.22s
sorty-4 took 12.36s
sorty-5 took 12.10s

Sorting float32
sortutil took 18.03s
zermelo took 14.57s
sorty-2 took 19.27s
sorty-3 took 15.82s
sorty-4 took 13.93s
sorty-5 took 13.90s

with go 1.11.6 (consistent with 1.11.5)

Sorting uint32
sortutil took 25.18s
zermelo took 10.93s
sorty-2 took 15.85s
sorty-3 took 13.05s
sorty-4 took 11.27s
sorty-5 took 11.05s

Sorting float32
sortutil took 23.69s
zermelo took 8.89s
sorty-2 took 19.25s
sorty-3 took 15.42s
sorty-4 took 13.19s
sorty-5 took 13.09s

Ian Lance Taylor

unread,
Mar 17, 2019, 7:35:15 PM3/17/19
to Serhat Şevki Dinçer, golang-nuts
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:46 PM Serhat Şevki Dinçer <jfcg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see a regression on speed with sorty tests (go test -short -gcflags '-B -s' -ldflags '-s -w') on my Intel Core i5-4210M laptop (also sortutil became faster, zermelo float became much slower):

Please open an issue with full details. Thanks.

Ian

Michael Jones

unread,
Mar 18, 2019, 3:41:07 AM3/18/19
to Ian Lance Taylor, Serhat Şevki Dinçer, golang-nuts
I don't have direct feedback on this, but I do have an observation based on my own faster-sort code, which is that timing seems about the same, and scaling seems different than this report.

The sorty_test.go file starts with "const N = 1 << 28" so we're talking about sorting a 268,435,456-element array of ints. In that code, they are uint32s and float32s, in mine, 64-bit ints. I should be slower, but adjusting my benchmarks for this array size I see:

go standard library sort.Ints()
54669865378 ns/op
54.6 sec

my quicksort
21398838106 ns/op
21.3 sec (2.55x stdlib)

my parallel quicksort
5428725888 ns/op
5.4 sec (10.0x stdlib, 3.94x serial version on my 4 cpu macbook pro)

These are 64-bit values and 32-bit should is just slightly faster
5.3 sec

I don't see a slowdown here Go version to version. Of course 10x slower in the standard library vs tuned parallel is unfortunate.

Michael

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
Michael T. Jones
michae...@gmail.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages