The `try await` ordering is both easier to read and indicates the order
of operations better, because the suspension point occurs first and
then one can observe a thrown error.
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()
Currently, the only thing in the system that donates a thread
to run it is swift_runAndBlockThread, but we'll probably need
others. Nothing in the concurrency runtime should block via a
semaphore in this configuration.
As an outrageous hack, work around the layering problems with
using libdispatch from the concurrency library on non-Darwin
systems by making those systems use the cooperative global
executor. This is only acceptable as a temporary solution
for landing this change and setting things onto the right
long-term design.
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.
Use the StackAllocator as task allocator.
TODO: we could pass an initial pre-allocated first slab to the allocator, which is allocated on the stack or with the parent task's allocator.
rdar://problem/71157018
libdispatch is not part of the system on Linux and Windows, and dispatch
has not been used for the standard library up until this point. The
current usage is limited to the Apple platforms, so rather than adding
another build of dispatch, conditionally include the header instead.
Bridging an async Swift method back to an ObjC completion-handler-based API requires
that the ObjC thunk spawn a task on which to execute the Swift async API and pass
its results back on to the completion handler.
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.
It just calls Task.runDetatched.
It's more efficient to have a non-generic compiler intrinsic than to let the compiler call the generic Task.runDetatched.
The _runAsyncHandler doesn't have to be generic because the return value of the run function is defined to be Void.
Implement SIL generation for "async let" constructs, which involves:
1. Creating a child task future at the point of declaration of the "async let",
which runs the initializer in an async closure.
2. Entering a cleanup to destroy the child task.
3. Entering a cleanup to cancel the child task.
4. Waiting for the child task when any of the variables is reference.
5. Decomposing the result of the child task to write the results into the
appropriate variables.
Implements rdar://71123479.
We somehow ended up with a set hidden in `Task` as well as a set at top level. SILGen currently
hooks into the top-level ones, so shed the `Task`-namespaced versions for now.
Switch the contract between the runtime operation `swift_future_task_wait`
and Task.Handle.get() pver to an asynchronous call, so that the
compiler will set up the resumption frame for us. This allows us to
correctly wait on futures.
Update our "basic" future test to perform both normal returns and
throwing returns from a future, either having to wait on the queue or
coming by afterward.
Rather than immediately running the task synchronously within
runDetached, return the handle to the newly-created task. Add a method
task.Handle.run() to execute the task. This is just a temporary hack
that should not persist in the API, but it lets us launch tasks on a
particular Dispatch queue:
```swift
extension DispatchQueue {
func async<R>(execute: @escaping () async -> R) -> Task.Handle<R> {
let handle = Task.runDetached(operation: execute)
// Run the task
_ = { self.async { handle.run() } }()
return handle
}
}
```
One can pass asynchronous work to DispatchQueue.async, which will
schedule that work on the dispatch queue and return a handle. Another
asynchronous task can then read the result.
Yay for rdar://71125519.
