Skip to main content

async.h - asynchronous, stackless subroutines in C

The async/await idiom is becoming increasingly popular. The first widely used language to include it was C#, and it has now spread into JavaScript and Rust. Now C/C++ programmers don't have to feel left out, because async.h is a header-only library that brings async/await to C!

Features:

  1. It's 100% portable C.
  2. It requires very little state (2 bytes).
  3. It's not dependent on an OS.
  4. It's a bit simpler to understand than protothreads because the async state is caller-saved rather than callee-saved.
#include "async.h"

struct async pt;
struct timer timer;

async example(struct async *pt) {
    async_begin(pt);
    
    while(1) {
        if(initiate_io()) {
            timer_start(&timer);
            await(io_completed() || timer_expired(&timer));
            read_data();
        }
    }
    async_end;
}

This library is basically a modified version of the idioms found in the Protothreads library by Adam Dunkels, so it's not truly ground breaking. I've made a few tweaks that make it more understandable and generate more compact code, and I also think it more cleanly maps to the async/await semantics than it does to true threading.

Protothreads and async.h are both based around local continuations, but where protothreads are callee-saved, async.h is caller-saved. This eliminates the need to pass in the local continuation to any async operations except async_begin. This simplifies the macros that implement the async/await idiom, and even simplifies code that uses async.h.

Here's a simple example of fork-join style "parallelism":

#include "async.h"

typedef struct { 
    async_state;
    struct async nested1;
    struct async nested2;
} example_state;
example_state pt;

async nested(struct async *pt){
    async_begin(pt);
    ...
    async_end;
}

async example(example_state *pt) {
    async_begin(pt);

    // fork two nested async subroutines and wait until both complete
    async_init(&pt->nested1);
    async_init(&pt->nested2);
    await(async_call(nested, &pt->nested1) & async_call(nested, &pt->nested2));
    
    // fork two nested async subroutines and wait until at least one completes
    async_init(&pt->nested1);
    async_init(&pt->nested2);
    await(async_call(nested, &pt->nested1) | async_call(nested, &pt->nested2));

    async_end;
}

Comments

przemub said…
'Tis more than cool! Yet another reminder that preprocessor enables some real magic.

Popular posts from this blog

Software Transactional Memory in Pure C#

Concurrent programming is a very difficult problem to tackle. The fundamental issue is that manual locking is not composable , which is to say that if you have two concurrent programs P0 and P1 free of deadlocks, livelocks and other concurrency hazards, and you try to compose P0 and P1 to create a program P2, P2 may not be free of concurrency hazards. For instance, if P0 and P1 take two locks in different orders, then P2 will deadlock. Needless to say, this is a serious problem because composition is the cornerstone of all programming. I've been toying with some ideas for software transactional memory (STM) in C# ever since I started playing with FRP and reactive programming in general. The problem in all of these domains is fundamentally about how to handle concurrent updates to shared state, and how to reconcile multiple, possibly conflicting updates to said state. Rx.NET handles concurrency essentially by removing the identity inherent to shared state. An IObservable<T&g

Why we are likely NOT living in a simulation

I typically keep this blog about computer science, but I also dabble in a bit of philosophy. I was initially struck by Bostrom's simulation argument when I first read it years ago. Over the years, I've cycled a few times between disputing what I believed were some of its assumptions, and cautious acceptance after realizing my mistake. The simulation argument in its simplest form is that one of the following must be true: simulations of humans can't be built, or simulations of humans won't be built, or we are almost certainly living in a simulation I think this argument is absolutely valid, so one of those outcomes is true. Claiming #3 is most likely is what's known as the simulation hypothesis , and has such proponents as Elon Musk. Sabine Hossenfelder recently argued against the simulation hypothesis by basically asserting that #1 above is plausible, but I actually think #2 is the most likely case. For reference, Bostrom calls future civilizations capable of r