Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

await macro is not in libcore. #56767

Closed
WildCryptoFox opened this issue Dec 13, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

await macro is not in libcore. #56767

WildCryptoFox opened this issue Dec 13, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@WildCryptoFox
Copy link
Contributor

@WildCryptoFox WildCryptoFox commented Dec 13, 2018

The await!() macro is defined in std but not in core, is there any reason for this?

@bjorn3
Copy link
Contributor

@bjorn3 bjorn3 commented Dec 13, 2018

It uses thread local storage, which isnt available outside libstd.

@WildCryptoFox
Copy link
Contributor Author

@WildCryptoFox WildCryptoFox commented Dec 13, 2018

@Nemo157
Copy link
Member

@Nemo157 Nemo157 commented Dec 13, 2018

It's intended to be moved to core at some point (there's a few ways to reimplement it, embrio-async's implementation is one but has some relatively spread out safety guarantees, adding the ability for generators to take resume arguments is another that I think would avoid needing any unsafe code at all).

I thought this was already noted on the tracking issue (#50547), but looking at it again it doesn't appear so, adding this issue to the unresolved questions would probably be useful.

@Nemo157 Nemo157 mentioned this issue Dec 13, 2018
10 of 11 tasks complete
@WildCryptoFox
Copy link
Contributor Author

@WildCryptoFox WildCryptoFox commented Dec 13, 2018

Thanks @Nemo157

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@nikomatsakis nikomatsakis commented Mar 5, 2019

Marking as not blocking for stabilization. Obviously we want things to work from core eventually, but it's ok if that doesn't work to start. Moreover, the major blocker here is resolving how generator arguments should work -- once that works, it seems clear that we'll be able to solve this.

@cramertj
Copy link
Member

@cramertj cramertj commented Sep 4, 2019

Closing this in favor of #56974

@cramertj cramertj closed this Sep 4, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
6 participants