Skip to content

asys#8817

Closed
Aurel300 wants to merge 96 commits intoHaxeFoundation:developmentfrom
Aurel300:feature/eval-libuv
Closed

asys#8817
Aurel300 wants to merge 96 commits intoHaxeFoundation:developmentfrom
Aurel300:feature/eval-libuv

Conversation

@Aurel300
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Aurel300 Aurel300 commented Sep 16, 2019

Implementation of HXP-0010.

Note: this PR has been split into #8831 and #8832, in addition to the target-specific PRs:


TODO

  • For eval the API exposed to Haxe should be made closer to the one exposed by HashLink – less logic in OCaml, more in shared code
  • (eval) sys.io.FileInput and sys.io.FileOutput were loaded hackily, this was moved to Std imports - maybe that's not good enough?
  • (eval) -dce no is required for the tests not to hang
  • (eval) Thread and Mutex have to be ported and used

Comment thread std/haxe/Timer.hx

package haxe;

#if (target.asys)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's no longer necessary to put dot-defines in parens?

Comment thread src/context/common.ml
com.package_rules <- PMap.add "sys" Forbidden com.package_rules;
if com.config.pf_asys then begin
raw_define_value com.defines "target.asys" "true";
define com Define.Asys
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why have both target.asys and asys? I thought the defines not prefixed by target. are just for backwards compatibility.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we have sys we should also have asys, otherwise this is just one giant trap.

@Simn Simn closed this Sep 22, 2019
@Simn Simn reopened this Sep 22, 2019
Comment thread libs/uv/uv_stubs.c Outdated
Comment thread libs/uv/uv_stubs.c Outdated
@Simn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Simn commented Sep 25, 2019

See #8831. Branch will be kept to experiment further, but we don't need an open long-term PR for this.

@Simn Simn closed this Sep 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants