Summary:
Patch from a series of patches to rename EAPI symbols to specific
library DSOs.
EAPI was designed to be able to pass
`__attribute__ ((visibility ("default")))` for symbols with
GCC, which would mean that even if -fvisibility=hidden was used
when compiling the library, the needed symbols would get exported.
MSVC __almost__ works like GCC (or mingw) in which you can
declare everything as export and it will just work (slower, but
it will work). But there's a caveat: global variables will not
work the same way for MSVC, but works for mingw and GCC.
For global variables (as opposed to functions), MSVC requires
correct DSO visibility for MSVC: instead of declaring a symbol as
export for everything, you need to declare it as import when
importing from another DSO and export when defining it locally.
With current EAPI definitions, we get the following example
working in mingw and MSVC (observe it doesn't define any global
variables as exported symbols).
Example 1:
dll1:
```
EAPI void foo(void);
EAPI void bar()
{
foo();
}
```
dll2:
```
EAPI void foo()
{
printf ("foo\n");
}
```
This works fine with API defined as __declspec(dllexport) in both
cases and for gcc defining as
`__atttribute__((visibility("default")))`
However, the following:
Example 2:
dll1:
```
EAPI extern int foo;
EAPI void foobar(void);
EAPI void bar()
{
foo = 5;
foobar();
}
```
dll2:
```
EAPI int foo = 0;
EAPI void foobar()
{
printf ("foo %d\n", foo);
}
```
This will work on mingw but will not work for MSVC. And that's why
EAPI is the only solution that worked for MSVC.
Co-authored-by: João Paulo Taylor Ienczak Zanette <jpaulotiz@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ricardo Campos <ricardo.campos@expertise.dev>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Cavalcante de Sousa <lucks.sousa@gmail.com>
Reviewers: jptiz, lucas, woohyun, vtorri, raster
Reviewed By: jptiz, lucas, vtorri
Subscribers: ProhtMeyhet, cedric, #reviewers, #committers
Tags: #efl
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D12188
Man, this was a tough one!
The content still needs work, but the structure makes a bit more sense now,
and there are no broken links, typos or doxygen warnings anymore.
It seems that use of eina_promise_data_get lead to mostly missuse. As it
duplicate other infrastructure which do not have the same problem. So better
remove it and if we need it back, we can just revert this patch later.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7578
eina_promise_data_set is a misleading API and result in conflicted use by
multiple independent piece of code leading to bug and crash. It is also not
necessary and we can avoid using it completely.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7575
A better solution is to actually have no eina_promise_data_set/get at all.
This reverts commit ce56f32270.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7574
This serie of patch didn't address the core problem in the design of the
ownership of eina_promise_data_{set/get} usage. It is also redundant with
other infrastructure in eina_promise and so not necessary completely.
This reverts commit de2ec0559b.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7573
commit 9b5155c9f1 brought about crashes
- specifically that i saw in terminology because it actually uses
eina_promise_data_set() and the new efl_loop_promise_new basically
took over ownership of that data, but if anyone used
eina_promise_data_set() the data ptr used by this new code would bwe
overwritten, causing segfauls when terminology loses selection
ownership. for days i had mysterious crashes of terminology until i
narrowed it down to the above, so if you have too, then this will fix
it.
what this does is create a data set intercept function callback that
for now is only for use inside efl to everride data sets so they set
data inside the new struct that tracks data. i also had to add and
intercept for eina_promise_data_free_cb_set() as this in theory could
also ber a similar problem.
so perhaps the idea/design of efl_loop_promise_new() is not right and
this kind of thgn has to be internal to eina promise... this means
eina promise and loops are much more tied together.
Efl.Future is an EO object which means even cancelling Efl.Future
objects requires EO. So this should be done before shutting down EO,
otherwise everything fails badly.
I believe Efl.Future is going to disappear soon, but the problem will
remain: if any promise/future uses EO or anything else outside of Eina
(so, basically anything) then it needs to be canceled before shutting
down the above layers. This is the same situation as with ecore events,
for which we've introduced ecore_event_type_flush.
Ping @cedric
This is a helper that creates a promise, then a future and immediately
resolves the promise, this will let the future be dispatched as usual,
from a clean main loop context.
Now when dealing with pointer types, we will not get pointer to
pointer semantics in callbacks and eina_promise_owner_value_set
for Eina_Promise.
It will work as expected:
Eina_Promise_Owner* promise = eina_promise_add();
void* p = malloc(sizeof(T));
eina_promise_owner_value_set(promise, p, &free);
Added eina_promise_race function that composes multiple
promise objects into a new promise which is fulfilled
when one of the promises are fulfilled, or fails
when one of the promises have failed.
Add a way for users of the promise owner to get notified when a
promise progress is registered. Also added a convenience composition
function that creates a promise which is fulfilled when another
promise has a progress notification.
Modify the way hooks are defined and used by promise generation in
Eolian in the Eo API.
Instead of passing macro names as parameters to EO_FUNC_BODY macros,
just re-define the actual hooks when it is needed.
Add a promise object to allows Eolian interface to include promises
as a way to have asynchronous value return and composibility.
The usage is like this in a .eo file:
class Foo {
methods {
bar {
params {
@inout promise: Promise<int>;
}
}
}
}
Which will create the following API interface:
void foo_bar(Eo* obj, Eina_Promise** promise);
and a Eina_Promise_Owner for the implementation, like this:
void _foo_bar(Eo* obj, Private_Data* pdata, Eina_Promise_Owner* promise);
Signed-off-by: Cedric Bail <cedric@osg.samsung.com>
Add a promise object that will allows Eolian interface to include promises
as a way to have asynchronous value return and composibility.
To understand better, let see the coming usage in a .eo file:
class Foo {
methods {
bar {
params {
@inout promise: Promise<int>;
}
}
}
}
Which will create the following API interface:
void foo_bar(Eo* obj, Eina_Promise** promise);
and the equivalent declaration for implementation.
However, the API function will instantiate the Promise for the user
and the implementer of the class automatically. So the user of this
function will treat it as a @out parameter, while the developer of the
function will treat it like a @inout parameter.
So, the user will use this function like this:
Eina_Promise* promise; // No need to instantiate
foo_bar(obj, &promise);
eina_promise_then(promise, callback);
Signed-off-by: Cedric Bail <cedric@osg.samsung.com>
Felipe Magno de Almeida
Elyes HAOUAS
Vincent Torri
Xavi Artigas
Cedric BAIL
Carsten Haitzler
Cedric BAIL
Bryce Harrington
Jean-Philippe Andre
Andy Williams
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
Guilherme Iscaro
Felipe Magno de Almeida
Lauro Moura
Jean Guyomarc'h