<p>
One of Go's design goals is to approach the performance of C for comparable
programs, yet on some benchmarks it does quite poorly, including several
-in <a href="/test/bench/shootout/">test/bench/shootout</a>. The slowest depend on libraries
-for which versions of comparable performance are not available in Go.
-For instance, <a href="/test/bench/shootout/pidigits.go">pidigits.go</a>
+in <a href="https://go.googlesource.com/exp/+/master/shootout/">golang.org/x/exp/shootout</a>.
+The slowest depend on libraries for which versions of comparable performance
+are not available in Go.
+For instance, <a href="https://go.googlesource.com/exp/+/master/shootout/pidigits.go">pidigits.go</a>
depends on a multi-precision math package, and the C
versions, unlike Go's, use <a href="http://gmplib.org/">GMP</a> (which is
written in optimized assembler).
Benchmarks that depend on regular expressions
-(<a href="/test/bench/shootout/regex-dna.go">regex-dna.go</a>, for instance) are
-essentially comparing Go's native <a href="/pkg/regexp">regexp package</a> to
+(<a href="https://go.googlesource.com/exp/+/master/shootout/regex-dna.go">regex-dna.go</a>,
+
for instance) are essentially comparing Go's native <a href="/pkg/regexp">regexp package</a> to
mature, highly optimized regular expression libraries like PCRE.
</p>
Benchmark games are won by extensive tuning and the Go versions of most
of the benchmarks need attention. If you measure comparable C
and Go programs
-(<a href="/test/bench/shootout/reverse-complement.go">reverse-complement.go</a> is one example), you'll see the two
-languages are much closer in raw performance than this suite would
-indicate.
+(<a href="https://go.googlesource.com/exp/+/master/shootout/reverse-complement.go">reverse-complement.go</a>
+is one example), you'll see the two languages are much closer in raw performance
+than this suite would indicate.
</p>
<p>