purego VS nocgo

Click here to view the commit: https://github.com/ebitengine/purego/commit/1a4ea678b5a7598275a28e787179da1b7a058b11

Click here to view the commit: https://github.com/ebitengine/purego/commit/1a4ea678b5a7598275a28e787179da1b7a058b11

Maybe interesting for you: https://github.com/ebitengine/purego

most X11 functionality can be accessed via xgb|xgbutil (jezek has a current fork). nucular makes use of it via shiny. OpenGL and such libraries can be assumed to exist on those systems, so directly calling those c libraries without cgo is a possibility. Ebiten is currently working on it: purego.

In the malware reverse engineering scene, there are a lot of forks of the upstream "debug" go library, because it allows loading, parsing, compiling and executing libraries from disk (rather than in-kernel or in-userspace).

And there's also "purego" as an implementation that directly generates shellcode.

Maybe those will help you, too?

I am just mentioning these because for my use cases those approaches worked perfectly, CGO free.

[1] https://github.com/Binject/debug

[2] https://github.com/ebitengine/purego

https://github.com/ebitengine/purego Instead of Go using C toolchain, purego bypass it for already (should I say compiled or object-compiled)

You could use https://github.com/ebitengine/purego which would not require a C compiler to build

I think that is what Ebitenengine is trying to create in https://github.com/ebitengine/purego, currently, they are focused on the darwin platform. I believe the original idea is from https://github.com/notti/nocgo. Basically what we need is `dlopen` in pure Go, on Windows that is a no-brainer because the call is in the kernel itself.