The behavior of the <code>vet</code> tool has changed to match
  the new semantics (see above) of loop variables in Go 1.22.
  When analyzing a file that requires Go 1.22 or newer
  (due to its go.mod file or a per-file build constraint),
  <code>vet</code>code> no longer reports references to
  loop variables from within a function literal that
  might outlive the iteration of the loop.
  In Go 1.22, loop variables are created anew for each iteration,

Otherwise, each read of a single-word-sized or sub-word-sized memory location
must observe a value actually written to that location (perhaps by a concurrent executing goroutine)
and not yet overwritten.
These implementation constraints make Go more like Java or JavaScript,
in that most races have a limited number of outcomes,
and less like C and C++, where the meaning of any program with a race
is entirely undefined, and the compiler may do anything at all.

Literal constants, <code>true</code>, <code>false</code>, <code>iota</code>,
and certain <a href="#Constant_expressions">constant expressions</a>
containing only untyped constant operands are untyped.
</p>

<p>
A constant may be given a type explicitly by a <a href="#Constant_declarations">constant declaration</a>
or <a href="#Conversions">conversion</a>, or implicitly when used in a

Literal constants, <code>true</code>, <code>false</code>, <code>iota</code>,
and certain <a href="#Constant_expressions">constant expressions</a>
containing only untyped constant operands are untyped.
</p>

<p>
A constant may be given a type explicitly by a <a href="#Constant_declarations">constant declaration</a>
or <a href="#Conversions">conversion</a>, or implicitly when used in a

</pre>

<h3 id="constants">Constants</h3>

<p>
Although the assembler takes its guidance from the Plan 9 assemblers,
it is a distinct program, so there are some differences.
One is in constant evaluation.
Constant expressions in the assembler are parsed using Go's operator
precedence, not the C-like precedence of the original.
Thus <code>3&amp;1&lt;&lt;2</code> is 4, not 0—it parses as <code>(3&amp;1)&lt;&lt;2</code>