> On Aug 15, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Rick Mann <rm...@latencyzero.com> wrote: > > Well, even C++ requires some amount of run time. On a larger MCU, the runtime > shouldn't be a problem at all. What I want to do is minimize the amount of OS > I have to implement. For example, using newlib > (https://sourceware.org/newlib/ <https://sourceware.org/newlib/>), I can stub > out 20-odd functions, and everything gets statically linked into a monolithic > block of code that is a combination of my code, the runtime, and those 20-odd > function stubs. A special chunk of code, usually containing assembly > language, ensures the processor and MMU are properly set up just after boot, > and you're off to the races. > > I imagine there will be additional burden to support threading and GCD (which > would be nice to have). But before that, supporting synchronization and > interrupt routines. > > Ah, interrupt routines. Is there any way to mark a function as "naked" in > Swift? How would I request that feature?
This would require significant design work. The main problem is that the Swift runtime is not re-entrant, because typical malloc() implementations are not re-entrant, and also because of how metadata caching uses locks. So even if you could emit a function with the right calling convention, it wouldn't be safe to use as an interrupt handler. Slava
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
