Live data from Hacker News

Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

mropert.github.io

11–20 of 190 posts

Re: Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

#11
post #5

Always jarring to see how Unity is stuck on an ancient version of C#. The use of IEnumerable as a "generator" mechanic is quite a good hack though.

Unity is currently on C# 9 and that IEnumerable trick is no longer needed in new codebases. async is properly supported.

Re: Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

#12
You can roll stackful coroutines in C++ (or C) with 50-ish lines of Assembly. It's a matter of saving a few registers and switching the stack pointer, minicoro [1] is a pretty good C library that does it. I like this model a lot more than C++20 coroutines:

1. C++20 coros are stackless, in the general case every async "function call" heap allocates.

2. If you do your own stackful coroutines, every function can suspend/resume, you don't have to deal with colored functions.

3. (opinion) C++20 coros are very tasteless and "C++-design-commitee pilled". They're very hard to understand, implement, require the STL, they're very heavy in debug builds and you'll end up with template hell to do something as simple as Promise.all

[1] https://github.com/edubart/minicoro

Re: Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

#13

Not an expert in game development, but I'd say the issue with C++ coroutines (and 'colored' async functions in general) is that the whole call stack must be written to support that. From a practical perspective, that must in turn be backed by a multithreaded event loop to be useful, which is very difficult to write performantly and correctly. Hence, most people end up using coroutines with something like boost::asio,…

Much of the original motivation for async was for single threaded event loops. Node and Python, for example. In C# it was partly motivated by the way Windows handles a "UI thread": if you're using the native Windows controls, you can only do so from one thread. There's quite a bit of machinery in there (ConfigureAwait) to control whether your async routine is run on the UI thread or on a different worker pool thread.

In a Unity context, the engine provides the main loop and the developer is writing behaviors for game entities.

Re: Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

#14

Not an expert in game development, but I'd say the issue with C++ coroutines (and 'colored' async functions in general) is that the whole call stack must be written to support that. From a practical perspective, that must in turn be backed by a multithreaded event loop to be useful, which is very difficult to write performantly and correctly. Hence, most people end up using coroutines with something like boost::asio,…

ASIO is also available outside of boost! https://github.com/chriskohlhoff/asio

For anyone wondering; this isn't a hack, that's the same library, just as good, just without boost dependencies.

Re: Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

#15

You can roll stackful coroutines in C++ (or C) with 50-ish lines of Assembly. It's a matter of saving a few registers and switching the stack pointer, minicoro [1] is a pretty good C library that does it. I like this model a lot more than C++20 coroutines: 1. C++20 coros are stackless, in the general case every async "function call" heap allocates. 2. If you do your own stackful coroutines, every function can suspend…

> You can roll stackful coroutines in C++ (or C) with 50-ish lines of Assembly

I'm not normally keen to "well actually" people with the C standard, but .. if you're writing in assembly, you're not writing in C. And the obvious consequence is that it stops being portable. Minicoro only supports three architectures. Granted, those are the three most popular ones, but other architectures exist.

(just double checked and it doesn't do Windows/ARM, for example. Not that I'm expecting Microsoft to ship full conformance for C++23 any time soon, but they have at least some of it)

Re: Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

#16

You can roll stackful coroutines in C++ (or C) with 50-ish lines of Assembly. It's a matter of saving a few registers and switching the stack pointer, minicoro [1] is a pretty good C library that does it. I like this model a lot more than C++20 coroutines: 1. C++20 coros are stackless, in the general case every async "function call" heap allocates. 2. If you do your own stackful coroutines, every function can suspend…

Hmm. I'm fairly certain that most of that assembly code for saving/restoring registers can be replaced with setjmp/longjmp, and only control transfer itself would require actual assembly. But maybe not.

That's the problem with register machines, I guess. Interestingly enough, BCPL, its main implementation being a p-code interpreter of sorts, has pretty trivially supported coroutines in its "standard" library since the late seventies — as you say, all you need to save is the current stack pointer and the code pointer.

Re: Looking at Unity made me understand the point of C++ coroutines

#19

You can roll stackful coroutines in C++ (or C) with 50-ish lines of Assembly. It's a matter of saving a few registers and switching the stack pointer, minicoro [1] is a pretty good C library that does it. I like this model a lot more than C++20 coroutines: 1. C++20 coros are stackless, in the general case every async "function call" heap allocates. 2. If you do your own stackful coroutines, every function can suspend…

Hmm. I'm fairly certain that most of that assembly code for saving/restoring registers can be replaced with setjmp/longjmp, and only control transfer itself would require actual assembly. But maybe not. That's the problem with register machines, I guess. Interestingly enough, BCPL, its main implementation being a p-code interpreter of sorts, has pretty trivially supported coroutines in its "standard" library since th…

> Hmm. I'm fairly certain that most of that assembly code for saving/restoring registers can be replaced with setjmp/longjmp, and only control transfer itself would require actual assembly.

Actually you don't even need setjmp/longjmp. I've used a library (embedded environment) called protothreads (plain C) that abused the preprocessor to implement stackful coroutines.

(Defined a macro that used the __LINE__ macro coupled with another macro that used a switch statement to ensure that calling the function again made it resume from where the last YIELD macro was encountered)

Post reply on HN