SWIFT_STDLIB_SINGLE_THREADED_RUNTIME is too much of a blunt instrument here.
It covers both the Concurrency runtime and the rest of the runtime, but we'd
like to be able to have e.g. a single-threaded Concurrency runtime while
the rest of the runtime is still thread safe (for instance).
So: rename it to SWIFT_STDLIB_SINGLE_THREADED_CONCURRENCY and make it just
control the Concurrency runtime, then add a SWIFT_STDLIB_THREADING_PACKAGE
setting at the CMake/build-script level, which defines
SWIFT_STDLIB_THREADING_xxx where xxx depends on the chosen threading package.
This is especially useful on systems where there may be a choice of threading
package that you could use.
rdar://90776105
Moved all the threading code to one place. Added explicit support for
Darwin, Linux, Pthreads, C11 threads and Win32 threads, including new
implementations of Once for Linux, Pthreads, C11 and Win32.
rdar://90776105
SWIFT_STDLIB_SINGLE_THREADED_RUNTIME is too much of a blunt instrument here.
It covers both the Concurrency runtime and the rest of the runtime, but we'd
like to be able to have e.g. a single-threaded Concurrency runtime while
the rest of the runtime is still thread safe (for instance).
So: rename it to SWIFT_STDLIB_SINGLE_THREADED_CONCURRENCY and make it just
control the Concurrency runtime, then add a SWIFT_STDLIB_THREADING_PACKAGE
setting at the CMake/build-script level, which defines
SWIFT_STDLIB_THREADING_xxx where xxx depends on the chosen threading package.
This is especially useful on systems where there may be a choice of threading
package that you could use.
rdar://90776105
Some headers switch their inline implementations based on
SWIFT_STDLIB_SINGLE_THREAD_RUNTIME definition.
This fixes linking failure while building runtime unittests
Both swiftRuntime and swift_Concurrency had swift::fatalError
implementation, but it causes symbol conflict when -static-stdlib.
This patch renames one of the impl in swift_Concurrency to avoid
conflict.
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.
