There were a few issues that were causing qemu-system-arm and
qemu-system-riscv to give the wrong exit codes. They are in fact capable
of exiting with 0 or 1 signalled from the running application, but this
functionality wasn't used. This commit changes this in the following
ways:
* It fixes SemiHosting codes, which were incorrectly written in
decimal while they should have been written in hexadecimal (oops!).
* It modifies all the baremetal main functions (aka reset handlers) to
exit with `exit(0)` instead of `abort()`.
* It changes `syscall.Exit` to call `exit(code)` instead of `abort()`
on baremetal targets.
* It adds these new exit functions where necessary, implemented in a
way that signals the correct exit status if running under QEMU.
All in all, this means that `tinygo test` doesn't have to look at the
output of a test to determine the outcome. It can simply look at the
exit code.
This reduces current consumption from 500-1000µA to very low (<10µA)
current consumption. This change is important for battery powered
devices, especially devices that may be running for long periods of
time.
This is the kind that is used in Go (actually CGo) for exporting
functions. I think it's best to use //export instead of our custom
//go:export pragma, for consistency (they are equivalent in TinyGo).
Therefore I've updated all instances to the standard format (except for
two that are updated in https://github.com/tinygo-org/tinygo/pull/1024).
No smoke tests changed (when comparing the output hash), except for some
wasm tests that include DWARF debug info and tend to be flaky anyway.
Before this commit, goroutine support was spread through the compiler.
This commit changes this support, so that the compiler itself only
generates simple intrinsics and leaves the real support to a compiler
pass that runs as one of the TinyGo-specific optimization passes.
The biggest change, that was done together with the rewrite, was support
for goroutines in WebAssembly for JavaScript. The challenge in
JavaScript is that in general no blocking operations are allowed, which
means that programs that call time.Sleep() but do not start goroutines
also have to be scheduled by the scheduler.
Let each target handle its own initialization/finalization sequence
instead of providing one in the runtime with hooks for memory
initialization etc. This is much more flexible although it causes a
little bit of code duplication.
Ayke van Laethem
Jaden Weiss
Ron Evans