I feel like this is approaching absurdity, if only because something like the total runtime of a function is not under the control of the author of the function. The operating environment will have an impact on that, for example, as will the load the system is currently experiencing. A GC pass can affect it.

In short, I wouldn't consider emergent behaviours of a machine as part of an intentional interface or any kind of contract and therefore I wouldn't see it as a breaking change, the same as fixing a subtle bug in a function wouldn't be seen as a breaking change even if someone depended on the unintentional behaviour.

I think it's more of a testament to Go's hardcore commitment to backwards compatibility, in this case, than anything else.

Yes, it’s an absurd example to make a point. We don’t normally consider performance in scope for what’s considered a breaking API change and there are good reasons for that, including being non-portable. Performance guarantees are what hard real-time systems do and they’re hardware-specific. (There is also the “gas fee” system that Ethereum has, to make a performance limit consistent across architectures.)

But there are still informal limits. If the performance impact is bad enough, (say, 5x slower, or changing a linear algorithm to quadratic), it’s probably going to be reverted anyway. We just don‘t have any practical way of formalizing rough performance guarantees at an API boundary.

It's quite common in cryptography for the runtime to be important. For example, password verification time shouldn't depend on the value of the key or the password. Systems have been broken because someone wrote a string compare that returned early.