This blog post details how to create a statically linked Go executable that utilizes C code, overcoming the challenges typically associated with CGO and external dependencies. The author leverages Zig as a build system and cross-compiler, using its ability to compile C code and link it directly into a Go-compatible archive. This approach eliminates the need for a system C toolchain on the target machine during deployment, producing a truly self-contained binary. The post provides a practical example, guiding the reader through the necessary Zig build script configuration and explaining the underlying principles. This allows for simplified deployment, particularly useful for environments like scratch Docker containers, and offers a more robust and reproducible build process.
This post explores optimizing Ruby's Foreign Function Interface (FFI) performance by using tiny Just-In-Time (JIT) compilers. The author demonstrates how generating specialized machine code for specific FFI calls can drastically reduce overhead compared to the generic FFI invocation process. They present a proof-of-concept implementation using Rust and inline assembly, showcasing significant speed improvements, especially for repeated calls with the same argument types. While acknowledging limitations and areas for future development, like handling different calling conventions and more complex types, the post concludes that tiny JITs offer a promising path toward a much faster Ruby FFI.
The Hacker News comments on "Tiny JITs for a Faster FFI" express skepticism about the practicality of tiny JITs in real-world scenarios. Several commenters question the performance gains, citing the overhead of the JIT itself and the potential for optimization by the host language's runtime. They argue that a well-optimized native library, or even careful use of the host language's FFI, could often outperform a tiny JIT. One commenter notes the difficulties of debugging and maintaining such a system, and another raises security concerns related to executing untrusted code. The overall sentiment leans towards established optimization techniques rather than introducing a new layer of complexity with a tiny JIT.
The blog post argues for a standardized, cross-platform OS API specifically designed for timers. Existing timer mechanisms, like POSIX's timerfd and Windows' CreateWaitableTimer, while useful, differ significantly across operating systems, complicating cross-platform development. The author proposes a new API with a consistent interface that abstracts away these platform-specific details. This ideal API would allow developers to create, arm, and disarm timers, specifying absolute or relative deadlines with optional periodic behavior, all while handling potential issues like early wake-ups gracefully. This would simplify codebases and improve portability for applications relying on precise timing across different operating systems.
The Hacker News comments discuss the complexities of cross-platform timer APIs, largely agreeing with the article's premise. Several commenters highlight the difficulties introduced by different operating systems' power management features, impacting timer accuracy and reliability. Specific challenges like signal coalescing and the lack of a unified interface for monotonic timers are mentioned. Some propose workarounds like busy-waiting for short durations or using platform-specific code for optimal performance. The need for a standardized API is reiterated, with suggestions for what such an API should offer, including considerations for power efficiency and different timer resolutions. One commenter points to the challenges of abstracting away hardware differences completely, suggesting the ideal solution may involve a combination of OS-level improvements and application-specific strategies.
Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43505646
Hacker News users discuss the clever use of Zig as a build tool to statically link C dependencies for Go programs, effectively bypassing the complexities of
cgoand resulting in self-contained binaries. Several commenters praise the approach for its elegance and practicality, particularly for cross-compilation scenarios. Some express concern about the potential fragility of relying on undocumented Go internals, while others highlight the ongoing efforts within the Go community to address static linking natively. A few users suggest alternative solutions like using Docker for consistent build environments or exploring fully statically-linked C libraries. The overall sentiment is positive, with many appreciating the ingenuity and potential of this Zig-based workaround.The Hacker News post discussing the blog post "Building Statically Linked Go Executables with CGO and Zig" has generated a moderate number of comments, focusing primarily on the complexities and nuances of linking C code with Go, especially when static linking is desired.
Several commenters point out that the core issue stems from Go's reliance on
libceven when using CGO, making fully static linking challenging. One commenter highlights the historical context, explaining how Go's initial design prioritized cross-compilation and dynamic linking, leading to this current situation. They also suggest that the current approach of relying on system libraries and then attempting to statically link them later is somewhat backwards and inherently problematic.Another commenter discusses the difficulties of statically linking
libcitself, emphasizing the various assumptions and dependencies thatlibchas on the target system. They suggest that truly static linking requires a "freestanding" environment, devoid of any operating system dependencies, which is difficult to achieve in practice, especially with Go's current architecture.The complexity of the proposed Zig/CGO approach is also a topic of discussion. One commenter expresses skepticism about its practicality, noting that it introduces another layer of tooling and build complexity. They also question the long-term maintainability of such a solution. Another user agrees, suggesting that the proposed workaround might be more trouble than it's worth, particularly for simpler projects.
The conversation also touches upon alternative solutions, such as using a completely different language for parts requiring C libraries or exploring other approaches for interacting with C code from Go. A commenter suggests that sometimes the best solution is to re-evaluate the need for the C library in the first place and explore if a pure Go alternative exists.
The comments don't offer a definitive solution to the static linking challenges with CGO but rather highlight the inherent complexities involved and spark a discussion about various workarounds and their trade-offs. The general sentiment seems to be that while the Zig approach presented in the blog post is interesting, it's not a silver bullet and might not be the most practical solution in many cases. There's a clear desire for a more streamlined and robust solution for static linking within the Go ecosystem, but the comments acknowledge the significant challenges involved in achieving this.