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

Move semantics for cross-task operations #678

Closed
eholk opened this issue Jul 12, 2011 · 6 comments
Closed

Move semantics for cross-task operations #678

eholk opened this issue Jul 12, 2011 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@eholk
Copy link
Contributor

eholk commented Jul 12, 2011

Channel operations (mainly sending) should have move semantics and only be allowed for unique things.

This also applies to arguments to spawned functions, and probably the spawned function itself.

@ghost ghost assigned eholk Jul 12, 2011
@eholk
Copy link
Contributor Author

eholk commented Jul 23, 2011

As of 54be5b0, this should be translating mostly correctly. There are still issues with typechecking it though.

@eholk
Copy link
Contributor Author

eholk commented Aug 15, 2011

With Graydon's work on move-mode arguments, and moving the task/comm system into a library, we're pretty much there. There still needs to be more safety checking on spawn though.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Sep 14, 2011

Let's make sure spawn takes a ~fn and that it's safe

@eholk
Copy link
Contributor Author

eholk commented Sep 14, 2011

Spawn currently uses move-mode, so kind checking should hopefully enforce that you're giving it a ~fn.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Sep 14, 2011

ok. I believe ~fn is not currently enforced - need to investigate. Further considerations: all of the things inside the spawned closure need to be ~, and all the environment allocs need to be migrated to the new task and dropped when the new task ends.

@ghost ghost assigned brson Sep 27, 2011
@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 6, 2011

fn~ is covered by #568, so I'm going to call this done. I'm sure we'll revisit task semantics post-0.1.

@brson brson closed this as completed Oct 6, 2011
pdietl pushed a commit to pdietl/rust that referenced this issue Apr 23, 2020
ZuseZ4 pushed a commit to EnzymeAD/rust that referenced this issue Mar 7, 2023
* Primal activity analysis fix

* bugfix

* Fix tests
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants