Change timeout/delay functions to non-async
#910
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Because of a compiler bug, the `async` implementations of `delay`/`delay_until`/`timeout`/`timeout_at` produce much larger RAM footprint than they should. Fixes rtic-rs#890.
dalegaard
force-pushed
the
improve_delay_memory
branch
from
96f99df
to
99e69d1
Compare
|
Might have to redo this one after #874 was merged ... :/ sorry for that. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi,
Because of a compiler bug, the
asyncimplementations ofdelay/delay_until/timeout/timeout_atproduce much larger RAM footprint than they should. This was documented in #890.This patch replaces those implementations with structs with
Futureimplementations instead. On my current project, over three tasks, this saves 488(776->288) bytes over three tasks that used thedelayandtimeoutfunctionality. As the target has only 8k of RAM, this was a significant saving.All tests pass, but if someone could take an extra look at the
Delayimplementation to verify that it is indeed safe, that would be great. I've not done much work with unsafe Rust so it's new territory for me.Best regards,
Lasse