From 7a05fa8a70d0ddc109b246b4a3f0421ce2d64ea6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Shenghou Ma Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:36:28 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] doc: fix dead links in FAQ Fixes #14741. Change-Id: Idb8de8b0c1059c15e4c3df4a60bbd340d4e74aba Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20487 Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick Reviewed-by: Andrew Gerrand --- doc/go_faq.html | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/go_faq.html b/doc/go_faq.html index b5f9772787..e1594e5c7c 100644 --- a/doc/go_faq.html +++ b/doc/go_faq.html @@ -1806,15 +1806,16 @@ Why does Go perform badly on benchmark X?

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 test/bench/shootout. The slowest depend on libraries -for which versions of comparable performance are not available in Go. -For instance, pidigits.go +in golang.org/x/exp/shootout. +The slowest depend on libraries for which versions of comparable performance +are not available in Go. +For instance, pidigits.go depends on a multi-precision math package, and the C versions, unlike Go's, use GMP (which is written in optimized assembler). Benchmarks that depend on regular expressions -(regex-dna.go, for instance) are -essentially comparing Go's native regexp package to +(regex-dna.go, +for instance) are essentially comparing Go's native regexp package to mature, highly optimized regular expression libraries like PCRE.

@@ -1822,9 +1823,9 @@ mature, highly optimized regular expression libraries like PCRE. 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 -(reverse-complement.go is one example), you'll see the two -languages are much closer in raw performance than this suite would -indicate. +(reverse-complement.go +is one example), you'll see the two languages are much closer in raw performance +than this suite would indicate.

-- 2.48.1