* Adds support for generating code that uses swiftasync parameter lowering.
* Currently only arm64's llvm lowering supports the swift_async_context_addr intrinsic.
* Add arm64e pointer signing of updated swift_async_context_addr.
This commit needs the PR llvm-project#2291.
* [runtime] unittests should use just-built compiler if the runtime did
This will start to matter with the introduction of usage of swiftasync parameters which only very recent compilers support.
rdar://71499498
move comments to the wired up continuations
remove duplicated continuations; leep the wired up ones
before moving to C++ for queue impl
trying to next wait via channel_poll
submitting works; need to impl next()
We expect to iterate on this quite a bit, both publicly
and internally, but this is a fine starting-point.
I've renamed runAsync to runAsyncAndBlock to underline
very clearly what it does and why it's not long for this
world. I've also had to give it a radically different
implementation in an effort to make it continue to work
given an actor implementation that is no longer just
running all work synchronously.
The major remaining bit of actor-scheduling work is to
make swift_task_enqueue actually do something sensible
based on the executor it's been given; currently it's
expecting a flag that IRGen simply doesn't know to set.
of adding a property.
This better matches what the actual implementation expects,
and it avoids some possibilities of weird mismatches. However,
it also requires special-case initialization, destruction, and
dynamic-layout support, none of which I've added yet.
In order to get NSObject default actor subclasses to use Swift
refcounting (and thus avoid the need for the default actor runtime
to generally use ObjC refcounting), I've had to introduce a
SwiftNativeNSObject which we substitute as the superclass when
inheriting directly from NSObject. This is something we could
do in all NSObject subclasses; for now, I'm just doing it in
actors, although it's all actors and not just default actors.
We are not yet taking advantage of our special knowledge of this
class anywhere except the reference-counting code.
I went around in circles exploring a number of alternatives for
doing this; at one point I basically had a completely parallel
"ForImplementation" superclass query. That proved to be a lot
of added complexity and created more problems than it solved.
We also don't *really* get any benefit from this subclassing
because there still wouldn't be a consistent superclass for all
actors. So instead it's very ad-hoc.
Associated objects are actively dangerous there because they’re non-isolated
actor state, and it’s “new” code wher no backward compatibility concerns that
make it more difficult to ban this on other forms of classes.
rdar://69769048
Introduce `FutureAsyncContext` to line up with the async context formed
by IR generation for the type `<T> () async throws -> T`. When allocating
a future task, set up the context with the address of the future's storage
for the successful result and null out the error result, so the caller
will directly fill in the result. This eliminates a bunch of extra
complexity and a copy.
Use a single atomic for the wait queue that combines the status with
the first task in the queue. Address race conditions in waiting and
completing the future.
Thanks to John for setting the direction here for me.
Extend AsyncTask and the concurrency runtime with basic support for
task futures. AsyncTasks with futures contain a future fragment with
information about the type produced by the future, and where the
future will put the result value or the thrown error in the initial
context.
We still don't have the ability to schedule the waiting tasks on an
executor when the future completes, so this isn't useful for anything
just test, and we can only test limited code paths.
Implement a new builtin, `cancelAsyncTask()`, to cancel the given
asynchronous task. This lowers down to a call into the runtime
operation `swift_task_cancel()`.
Use this builtin to implement Task.Handle.cancel().
Emit a once token when adding canonical prespecialized metadata records
to a nominal type descriptor and add the token itself as a trailing
object to the type descriptor. The new token will, in subsequent
commits, enable the canonical prespecialized metadata records attached
to the type descriptor to be added to the metadata cache exactly once.
There are things about this that I'm far from sold on. In
particular, I'm concerned that in order to implement escalation
correctly, we're going to have to add a status record for the
fact that the task is being executed, which means we're going
to have to potentially wait to acquire the status lock; overall,
that means making an extra runtime function call and doing some
atomics whenever we resume or suspend a task, which is an
uncomfortable amount of overhead.
The testing here is pretty grossly inadequate, but I wanted to
lay down the groundwork here.
For actor class's implementations of `enqueue(partialTask:)`, use a
fixed ptrauth discriminator. Paired with the fixed vtable location,
this allows one to invoke this operation on any native actor instance
without knowing the specific type.
The attachment of the canonical prespecializations to the generic type
will enable runtime functions to look through the canonical
prespecializations in order to return them (getGenericMetadata) and
register them with the runtime (getSpecializedGenericMetadata).
