</p>

<p>
More generally, it can be shown that any Go program that is data-race-free,
meaning it has no program executions with read-write or write-write data races,
can only have outcomes explained by some sequentially consistent interleaving
of the goroutine executions.
(The proof is the same as Section 7 of Boehm and Adve's paper cited above.)
This property is called DRF-SC.
</p>

<p>

	_, _                                  //                        (iota == 2, unused)
	bit3, mask3                           // bit3 == 8, mask3 == 7  (iota == 3)
)
</pre>

<p>
This last example exploits the <a href="#Constant_declarations">implicit repetition</a>
of the last non-empty expression list.
</p>


<h3 id="Type_declarations">Type declarations</h3>

<p>

If you plan to write assembly language, you should read that document although much of it is Plan 9-specific.
The current document provides a summary of the syntax and the differences with
what is explained in that document, and
describes the peculiarities that apply when writing assembly code to interact with Go.
</p>

<p>

The precise details are relevant for Go implementations,
affect the specifics of error messages (such as whether
a compiler reports a type inference or other error),
and may explain why type inference fails in unusual code situations.
But by and large these rules can be ignored when writing Go code:
type inference is designed to mostly "work as expected",