Heap

Package goque provides embedded, disk-based implementations of stack, queue, and priority queue data structures. Motivation for creating this project was the need for a persistent priority queue that remained performant while growing well beyond the available memory of a given machine. While there are many packages for Go offering queues, they all seem to be memory based and/or standalone solutions that are not embeddable within an application. Instead of using an in-memory heap structure to store data, everything is stored using the Go port of LevelDB (https://github.com/syndtr/goleveldb). This results in very little memory being used no matter the size of the database, while read and write performance remains near constant. See README.md or visit https://github.com/beeker1121/goque for more info. ExampleObject demonstrates enqueuing a struct object. ExamplePrefixQueue demonstrates the implementation of a Goque queue. ExamplePriorityQueue demonstrates the implementation of a Goque queue. ExampleQueue demonstrates the implementation of a Goque queue. ExampleStack demonstrates the implementation of a Goque stack.

Package deheap provides the implementation of a doubly ended heap. Doubly ended heaps are heaps with two sides, a min side and a max side. Like normal single-sided heaps, elements can be pushed onto and pulled off of a deheap. deheaps have an additional Pop function, PopMax, that returns elements from the opposite side of the ordering. This implementation has emphasized compatibility with existing libraries in the sort and heap packages. Performace of the deheap functions should be very close to the performance of the functions of the heap library This example inserts several ints into an IntHeap, checks the minimum, and removes them in order of priority.

Package pointer implements Andersen's analysis, an inclusion-based pointer analysis algorithm first described in (Andersen, 1994). A pointer analysis relates every pointer expression in a whole program to the set of memory locations to which it might point. This information can be used to construct a call graph of the program that precisely represents the destinations of dynamic function and method calls. It can also be used to determine, for example, which pairs of channel operations operate on the same channel. The package allows the client to request a set of expressions of interest for which the points-to information will be returned once the analysis is complete. In addition, the client may request that a callgraph is constructed. The example program in example_test.go demonstrates both of these features. Clients should not request more information than they need since it may increase the cost of the analysis significantly. Our algorithm is INCLUSION-BASED: the points-to sets for x and y will be related by pts(y) ⊇ pts(x) if the program contains the statement y = x. It is FLOW-INSENSITIVE: it ignores all control flow constructs and the order of statements in a program. It is therefore a "MAY ALIAS" analysis: its facts are of the form "P may/may not point to L", not "P must point to L". It is FIELD-SENSITIVE: it builds separate points-to sets for distinct fields, such as x and y in struct { x, y *int }. It is mostly CONTEXT-INSENSITIVE: most functions are analyzed once, so values can flow in at one call to the function and return out at another. Only some smaller functions are analyzed with consideration of their calling context. It has a CONTEXT-SENSITIVE HEAP: objects are named by both allocation site and context, so the objects returned by two distinct calls to f: are distinguished up to the limits of the calling context. It is a WHOLE PROGRAM analysis: it requires SSA-form IR for the complete Go program and summaries for native code. See the (Hind, PASTE'01) survey paper for an explanation of these terms. The analysis is fully sound when invoked on pure Go programs that do not use reflection or unsafe.Pointer conversions. In other words, if there is any possible execution of the program in which pointer P may point to object O, the analysis will report that fact. By default, the "reflect" library is ignored by the analysis, as if all its functions were no-ops, but if the client enables the Reflection flag, the analysis will make a reasonable attempt to model the effects of calls into this library. However, this comes at a significant performance cost, and not all features of that library are yet implemented. In addition, some simplifying approximations must be made to ensure that the analysis terminates; for example, reflection can be used to construct an infinite set of types and values of those types, but the analysis arbitrarily bounds the depth of such types. Most but not all reflection operations are supported. In particular, addressable reflect.Values are not yet implemented, so operations such as (reflect.Value).Set have no analytic effect. The pointer analysis makes no attempt to understand aliasing between the operand x and result y of an unsafe.Pointer conversion: It is as if the conversion allocated an entirely new object: The analysis cannot model the aliasing effects of functions written in languages other than Go, such as runtime intrinsics in C or assembly, or code accessed via cgo. The result is as if such functions are no-ops. However, various important intrinsics are understood by the analysis, along with built-ins such as append. The analysis currently provides no way for users to specify the aliasing effects of native code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The remaining documentation is intended for package maintainers and pointer analysis specialists. Maintainers should have a solid understanding of the referenced papers (especially those by H&L and PKH) before making making significant changes. The implementation is similar to that described in (Pearce et al, PASTE'04). Unlike many algorithms which interleave constraint generation and solving, constructing the callgraph as they go, this implementation for the most part observes a phase ordering (generation before solving), with only simple (copy) constraints being generated during solving. (The exception is reflection, which creates various constraints during solving as new types flow to reflect.Value operations.) This improves the traction of presolver optimisations, but imposes certain restrictions, e.g. potential context sensitivity is limited since all variants must be created a priori. A type is said to be "pointer-like" if it is a reference to an object. Pointer-like types include pointers and also interfaces, maps, channels, functions and slices. We occasionally use C's x->f notation to distinguish the case where x is a struct pointer from x.f where is a struct value. Pointer analysis literature (and our comments) often uses the notation dst=*src+offset to mean something different than what it means in Go. It means: for each node index p in pts(src), the node index p+offset is in pts(dst). Similarly *dst+offset=src is used for store constraints and dst=src+offset for offset-address constraints. Nodes are the key datastructure of the analysis, and have a dual role: they represent both constraint variables (equivalence classes of pointers) and members of points-to sets (things that can be pointed at, i.e. "labels"). Nodes are naturally numbered. The numbering enables compact representations of sets of nodes such as bitvectors (or BDDs); and the ordering enables a very cheap way to group related nodes together. For example, passing n parameters consists of generating n parallel constraints from caller+i to callee+i for 0<=i<n. The zero nodeid means "not a pointer". For simplicity, we generate flow constraints even for non-pointer types such as int. The pointer equivalence (PE) presolver optimization detects which variables cannot point to anything; this includes not only all variables of non-pointer types (such as int) but also variables of pointer-like types if they are always nil, or are parameters to a function that is never called. Each node represents a scalar part of a value or object. Aggregate types (structs, tuples, arrays) are recursively flattened out into a sequential list of scalar component types, and all the elements of an array are represented by a single node. (The flattening of a basic type is a list containing a single node.) Nodes are connected into a graph with various kinds of labelled edges: simple edges (or copy constraints) represent value flow. Complex edges (load, store, etc) trigger the creation of new simple edges during the solving phase. Conceptually, an "object" is a contiguous sequence of nodes denoting an addressable location: something that a pointer can point to. The first node of an object has a non-nil obj field containing information about the allocation: its size, context, and ssa.Value. Objects include: Many objects have no Go types. For example, the func, map and chan type kinds in Go are all varieties of pointers, but their respective objects are actual functions (executable code), maps (hash tables), and channels (synchronized queues). Given the way we model interfaces, they too are pointers to "tagged" objects with no Go type. And an *ssa.Global denotes the address of a global variable, but the object for a Global is the actual data. So, the types of an ssa.Value that creates an object is "off by one indirection": a pointer to the object. The individual nodes of an object are sometimes referred to as "labels". For uniformity, all objects have a non-zero number of fields, even those of the empty type struct{}. (All arrays are treated as if of length 1, so there are no empty arrays. The empty tuple is never address-taken, so is never an object.) An tagged object has the following layout: The T node's typ field is the dynamic type of the "payload": the value v which follows, flattened out. The T node's obj has the otTagged flag. Tagged objects are needed when generalizing across types: interfaces, reflect.Values, reflect.Types. Each of these three types is modelled as a pointer that exclusively points to tagged objects. Tagged objects may be indirect (obj.flags ⊇ {otIndirect}) meaning that the value v is not of type T but *T; this is used only for reflect.Values that represent lvalues. (These are not implemented yet.) Variables of the following "scalar" types may be represented by a single node: basic types, pointers, channels, maps, slices, 'func' pointers, interfaces. Pointers: Nothing to say here, oddly. Basic types (bool, string, numbers, unsafe.Pointer): Currently all fields in the flattening of a type, including non-pointer basic types such as int, are represented in objects and values. Though non-pointer nodes within values are uninteresting, non-pointer nodes in objects may be useful (if address-taken) because they permit the analysis to deduce, in this example, that p points to s.x. If we ignored such object fields, we could only say that p points somewhere within s. All other basic types are ignored. Expressions of these types have zero nodeid, and fields of these types within aggregate other types are omitted. unsafe.Pointers are not modelled as pointers, so a conversion of an unsafe.Pointer to *T is (unsoundly) treated equivalent to new(T). Channels: An expression of type 'chan T' is a kind of pointer that points exclusively to channel objects, i.e. objects created by MakeChan (or reflection). 'chan T' is treated like *T. *ssa.MakeChan is treated as equivalent to new(T). *ssa.Send and receive (*ssa.UnOp(ARROW)) and are equivalent to store Maps: An expression of type 'map[K]V' is a kind of pointer that points exclusively to map objects, i.e. objects created by MakeMap (or reflection). map K[V] is treated like *M where M = struct{k K; v V}. *ssa.MakeMap is equivalent to new(M). *ssa.MapUpdate is equivalent to *y=x where *y and x have type M. *ssa.Lookup is equivalent to y=x.v where x has type *M. Slices: A slice []T, which dynamically resembles a struct{array *T, len, cap int}, is treated as if it were just a *T pointer; the len and cap fields are ignored. *ssa.MakeSlice is treated like new([1]T): an allocation of a *ssa.Index on a slice is equivalent to a load. *ssa.IndexAddr on a slice returns the address of the sole element of the slice, i.e. the same address. *ssa.Slice is treated as a simple copy. Functions: An expression of type 'func...' is a kind of pointer that points exclusively to function objects. A function object has the following layout: There may be multiple function objects for the same *ssa.Function due to context-sensitive treatment of some functions. The first node is the function's identity node. Associated with every callsite is a special "targets" variable, whose pts() contains the identity node of each function to which the call may dispatch. Identity words are not otherwise used during the analysis, but we construct the call graph from the pts() solution for such nodes. The following block of contiguous nodes represents the flattened-out types of the parameters ("P-block") and results ("R-block") of the function object. The treatment of free variables of closures (*ssa.FreeVar) is like that of global variables; it is not context-sensitive. *ssa.MakeClosure instructions create copy edges to Captures. A Go value of type 'func' (i.e. a pointer to one or more functions) is a pointer whose pts() contains function objects. The valueNode() for an *ssa.Function returns a singleton for that function. Interfaces: An expression of type 'interface{...}' is a kind of pointer that points exclusively to tagged objects. All tagged objects pointed to by an interface are direct (the otIndirect flag is clear) and concrete (the tag type T is not itself an interface type). The associated ssa.Value for an interface's tagged objects may be an *ssa.MakeInterface instruction, or nil if the tagged object was created by an instrinsic (e.g. reflection). Constructing an interface value causes generation of constraints for all of the concrete type's methods; we can't tell a priori which ones may be called. TypeAssert y = x.(T) is implemented by a dynamic constraint triggered by each tagged object O added to pts(x): a typeFilter constraint if T is an interface type, or an untag constraint if T is a concrete type. A typeFilter tests whether O.typ implements T; if so, O is added to pts(y). An untagFilter tests whether O.typ is assignable to T,and if so, a copy edge O.v -> y is added. ChangeInterface is a simple copy because the representation of tagged objects is independent of the interface type (in contrast to the "method tables" approach used by the gc runtime). y := Invoke x.m(...) is implemented by allocating contiguous P/R blocks for the callsite and adding a dynamic rule triggered by each tagged object added to pts(x). The rule adds param/results copy edges to/from each discovered concrete method. (Q. Why do we model an interface as a pointer to a pair of type and value, rather than as a pair of a pointer to type and a pointer to value? A. Control-flow joins would merge interfaces ({T1}, {V1}) and ({T2}, {V2}) to make ({T1,T2}, {V1,V2}), leading to the infeasible and type-unsafe combination (T1,V2). Treating the value and its concrete type as inseparable makes the analysis type-safe.) Type parameters: Type parameters are not directly supported by the analysis. Calls to generic functions will be left as if they had empty bodies. Users of the package are expected to use the ssa.InstantiateGenerics builder mode when building code that uses or depends on code containing generics. reflect.Value: A reflect.Value is modelled very similar to an interface{}, i.e. as a pointer exclusively to tagged objects, but with two generalizations. 1. a reflect.Value that represents an lvalue points to an indirect (obj.flags ⊇ {otIndirect}) tagged object, which has a similar layout to an tagged object except that the value is a pointer to the dynamic type. Indirect tagged objects preserve the correct aliasing so that mutations made by (reflect.Value).Set can be observed. Indirect objects only arise when an lvalue is derived from an rvalue by indirection, e.g. the following code: Whether indirect or not, the concrete type of the tagged object corresponds to the user-visible dynamic type, and the existence of a pointer is an implementation detail. (NB: indirect tagged objects are not yet implemented) 2. The dynamic type tag of a tagged object pointed to by a reflect.Value may be an interface type; it need not be concrete. This arises in code such as this: pts(eface) is a singleton containing an interface{}-tagged object. That tagged object's payload is an interface{} value, i.e. the pts of the payload contains only concrete-tagged objects, although in this example it's the zero interface{} value, so its pts is empty. reflect.Type: Just as in the real "reflect" library, we represent a reflect.Type as an interface whose sole implementation is the concrete type, *reflect.rtype. (This choice is forced on us by go/types: clients cannot fabricate types with arbitrary method sets.) rtype instances are canonical: there is at most one per dynamic type. (rtypes are in fact large structs but since identity is all that matters, we represent them by a single node.) The payload of each *rtype-tagged object is an *rtype pointer that points to exactly one such canonical rtype object. We exploit this by setting the node.typ of the payload to the dynamic type, not '*rtype'. This saves us an indirection in each resolution rule. As an optimisation, *rtype-tagged objects are canonicalized too. Aggregate types: Aggregate types are treated as if all directly contained aggregates are recursively flattened out. Structs: *ssa.Field y = x.f creates a simple edge to y from x's node at f's offset. *ssa.FieldAddr y = &x->f requires a dynamic closure rule to create The nodes of a struct consist of a special 'identity' node (whose type is that of the struct itself), followed by the nodes for all the struct's fields, recursively flattened out. A pointer to the struct is a pointer to its identity node. That node allows us to distinguish a pointer to a struct from a pointer to its first field. Field offsets are logical field offsets (plus one for the identity node), so the sizes of the fields can be ignored by the analysis. (The identity node is non-traditional but enables the distinction described above, which is valuable for code comprehension tools. Typical pointer analyses for C, whose purpose is compiler optimization, must soundly model unsafe.Pointer (void*) conversions, and this requires fidelity to the actual memory layout using physical field offsets.) *ssa.Field y = x.f creates a simple edge to y from x's node at f's offset. *ssa.FieldAddr y = &x->f requires a dynamic closure rule to create Arrays: We model an array by an identity node (whose type is that of the array itself) followed by a node representing all the elements of the array; the analysis does not distinguish elements with different indices. Effectively, an array is treated like struct{elem T}, a load y=x[i] like y=x.elem, and a store x[i]=y like x.elem=y; the index i is ignored. A pointer to an array is pointer to its identity node. (A slice is also a pointer to an array's identity node.) The identity node allows us to distinguish a pointer to an array from a pointer to one of its elements, but it is rather costly because it introduces more offset constraints into the system. Furthermore, sound treatment of unsafe.Pointer would require us to dispense with this node. Arrays may be allocated by Alloc, by make([]T), by calls to append, and via reflection. Tuples (T, ...): Tuples are treated like structs with naturally numbered fields. *ssa.Extract is analogous to *ssa.Field. However, tuples have no identity field since by construction, they cannot be address-taken. There are three kinds of function call: Cases 1 and 2 apply equally to methods and standalone functions. Static calls: A static call consists three steps: A static function call is little more than two struct value copies between the P/R blocks of caller and callee: Context sensitivity: Static calls (alone) may be treated context sensitively, i.e. each callsite may cause a distinct re-analysis of the callee, improving precision. Our current context-sensitivity policy treats all intrinsics and getter/setter methods in this manner since such functions are small and seem like an obvious source of spurious confluences, though this has not yet been evaluated. Dynamic function calls: Dynamic calls work in a similar manner except that the creation of copy edges occurs dynamically, in a similar fashion to a pair of struct copies in which the callee is indirect: (Recall that the function object's P- and R-blocks are contiguous.) Interface method invocation: For invoke-mode calls, we create a params/results block for the callsite and attach a dynamic closure rule to the interface. For each new tagged object that flows to the interface, we look up the concrete method, find its function object, and connect its P/R blocks to the callsite's P/R blocks, adding copy edges to the graph during solving. Recording call targets: The analysis notifies its clients of each callsite it encounters, passing a CallSite interface. Among other things, the CallSite contains a synthetic constraint variable ("targets") whose points-to solution includes the set of all function objects to which the call may dispatch. It is via this mechanism that the callgraph is made available. Clients may also elect to be notified of callgraph edges directly; internally this just iterates all "targets" variables' pts(·)s. We implement Hash-Value Numbering (HVN), a pre-solver constraint optimization described in Hardekopf & Lin, SAS'07. This is documented in more detail in hvn.go. We intend to add its cousins HR and HU in future. The solver is currently a naive Andersen-style implementation; it does not perform online cycle detection, though we plan to add solver optimisations such as Hybrid- and Lazy- Cycle Detection from (Hardekopf & Lin, PLDI'07). It uses difference propagation (Pearce et al, SQC'04) to avoid redundant re-triggering of closure rules for values already seen. Points-to sets are represented using sparse bit vectors (similar to those used in LLVM and gcc), which are more space- and time-efficient than sets based on Go's built-in map type or dense bit vectors. Nodes are permuted prior to solving so that object nodes (which may appear in points-to sets) are lower numbered than non-object (var) nodes. This improves the density of the set over which the PTSs range, and thus the efficiency of the representation. Partly thanks to avoiding map iteration, the execution of the solver is 100% deterministic, a great help during debugging. Andersen, L. O. 1994. Program analysis and specialization for the C programming language. Ph.D. dissertation. DIKU, University of Copenhagen. David J. Pearce, Paul H. J. Kelly, and Chris Hankin. 2004. Efficient field-sensitive pointer analysis for C. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on Program analysis for software tools and engineering (PASTE '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37-42. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/996821.996835 David J. Pearce, Paul H. J. Kelly, and Chris Hankin. 2004. Online Cycle Detection and Difference Propagation: Applications to Pointer Analysis. Software Quality Control 12, 4 (December 2004), 311-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SQJO.0000039791.93071.a2 David Grove and Craig Chambers. 2001. A framework for call graph construction algorithms. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 23, 6 (November 2001), 685-746. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/506315.506316 Ben Hardekopf and Calvin Lin. 2007. The ant and the grasshopper: fast and accurate pointer analysis for millions of lines of code. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming language design and implementation (PLDI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 290-299. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1250734.1250767 Ben Hardekopf and Calvin Lin. 2007. Exploiting pointer and location equivalence to optimize pointer analysis. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Static Analysis (SAS'07), Hanne Riis Nielson and Gilberto Filé (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 265-280. Atanas Rountev and Satish Chandra. 2000. Off-line variable substitution for scaling points-to analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2000 conference on Programming language design and implementation (PLDI '00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 47-56. DOI=10.1145/349299.349310 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/349299.349310 This program demonstrates how to use the pointer analysis to obtain a conservative call-graph of a Go program. It also shows how to compute the points-to set of a variable, in this case, (C).f's ch parameter.

Package fibHeap implements the Fibonacci Heap priority queue. This implementation is a bit different from the traditional Fibonacci Heap by having an index map to achieve better encapsulation.

Package namecheap - Golang client for Namecheap's API To use this project you'll need to either pull down the source or vendor it into your project. Once added to your project there are two ways to construct a Client The following environmental variables are supported: The public methods are viewable here: https://godoc.org/github.com/adamdecaf/namecheap Please raise an issue or pull request if you run into problems. Thanks!

Offheap An off-heap hash-table for Go (golang). Originally called go-offheap-hashtable, but now shortened to just offheap. The purpose here is to have a hash table that can work away from Go's Garbage Collector, to avoid long GC pause times. We accomplish this by writing our own Malloc() and Free() implementation (see malloc.go) which requests memory directly from the OS. The keys, values, and entire hash table is kept on off-heap storage. This storage can also optionally be backed by memory mapped file for speedy persistence and fast startup times. Initial HashTable implementation inspired by the public domain C++ code of See also for performance studies of the C++ code. The implementation is mostly in offheap.go, read that to start. Maps pointer-sized integers to Cell structures, which in turn hold Val_t as well as Key_t structures. Uses open addressing with linear probing. This makes it very cache friendly and thus very fast. In the t.Cells array, UnHashedKey = 0 is reserved to indicate an unused cell. Actual value for key 0 (if any) is stored in t.ZeroCell. The hash table automatically doubles in size when it becomes 75% full. The hash table never shrinks in size, even after Clear(), unless you explicitly call Compact(). Basic operations: Lookup(), Insert(), DeleteKey(). These are the equivalent of the builtin map[uint64]interface{}. As an example of how to specialize for a map[string]*Cell equivalent, see the following functions in the bytekey.go file: Example use: Note that this library is only a starting point of source code, and not intended to be used without customization. Users of the HashTable will have to customize it by changing the definitions of Key_t and Val_t to suite their needs. On Save(), serialization of the HashTable itself is done using msgpack to write bytes to the first page (4k bytes) of the memory mapped file. This uses github.com/tinylib/msgp which is a blazing fast msgpack serialization library. It is fast because it avoids reflection and pre-computes the serializations (using go generate based inspection of your go source). If you need to serialize your values into the Val_t, I would suggest evaluating the msgp for serialization and deserialization. The author, Philip Hofer, has done a terrific job and put alot of effort into tuning it for performance. If you are still pressed for speed, consider also omitting the field labels using the '//msgp:tuple MyValueType' annotation. As Mr. Hofer says, "For smaller objects, tuple encoding can yield serious performance improvements." [https://github.com/tinylib/msgp/wiki/Preprocessor-Directives]. Related ideas: https://gist.github.com/mish15/9822474 (using CGO) CGO note: the cgo-malloc branch of this github repo has an implementation that uses CGO to call the malloc/calloc/free functions in the C stdlib. Using CGO gives up the save-to-disk instantly feature and creates a portability issue where you have linked against a specific version of the C stdlib. However if you are making/destroying alot of tables, the CGO approach may be faster. This is because calling malloc and free in the standard C library are much faster than making repeated system calls to mmap(). more related ideas: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/kCQP6S6ZGh0 not fully off-heap, but using a slice instead of a map appears to help GC quite alot too: https://github.com/cespare/kvcache/blob/master/refmap.go

Package trie implements several types of performant Tries (e.g. rune-wise, path-wise). The implementations are optimized for Get performance and to allocate 0 bytes of heap memory (i.e. garbage) per Get. The Tries do not synchronize access (not thread-safe). A typical use case is to perform Puts and Deletes upfront to populate the Trie, then perform Gets very quickly.

Package watchdog runs a singleton memory watchdog in the process, which watches memory utilization and forces Go GC in accordance with a user-defined policy. There three kinds of watchdogs: The watchdog's behaviour is controlled by the policy, a pluggable function that determines when to trigger GC based on the current utilization. This library ships with two policies: You can easily write a custom policy tailored to the allocation patterns of your program. The recommended way to set up the watchdog is as follows, in descending order of precedence. This logic assumes that the library supports setting a heap limit through an environment variable (e.g. MYAPP_HEAP_MAX) or config key.

Package go4.org/unsafe/assume-no-moving-gc exists so you can depend on it from unsafe code that wants to declare that it assumes that the Go runtime does not use a moving garbage collector. Specifically, it asserts that the caller is playing stupid games with the addresses of heap-allocated values. It says nothing about values that Go's escape analysis keeps on the stack. Ensuring things aren't stack-allocated is the caller's responsibility. This package is then updated as needed for new Go versions when that is still the case and explodes at runtime with a failure otherwise, with the idea that it's better to not start at all than to silently corrupt your data at runtime. To use: There is no API. As of Go 1.21, this package asks the Go runtime whether it can move heap objects around. If you get an error on versions prior to that, go get go4.org/unsafe/assume-no-moving-gc@latest and things will work. The GitHub repo is at https://github.com/go4org/unsafe-assume-no-moving-gc

namecheap - Golang client for Namecheap's API To use this project you'll need to either pull down the source or vendor it into your project. Once added to your project there are two ways to contruct a Client The following environmental variables are supported: The public methods are viewable here: https://godoc.org/github.com/adamdecaf/namecheap Please raise an issue or pull request if you run into problems. Thanks!

The quickselect package provides primitives for finding the smallest k elements in slices and user-defined collections. The primitives used in the package are modeled off of the standard sort library for Go. Quickselect uses Hoare's Selection Algorithm which finds the smallest k elements in expected O(n) time, and is thus an asymptotically optimal algorithm (and is faster than sorting or heap implementations).