`pow(a, b, c)` can compute `(a ** b) % c` efficiently (in time and memory).
This can be useful for extremely specific applications, like implementing
the RSA cryptosystem. For typical uses of CircuitPython, this is not an
important feature. A survey of the bundle and learn system didn't find
any uses.
Disable it on M0 builds so that we can fit in needed upgrades to the USB
stack.
Disable certain classes of diagnostic when building ulab. We should
submit patches upstream to (A) fix these errors and (B) upgrade their
CI so that the problems are caught before we want to integrate with
CircuitPython, but not right now.
I like to use local makefile overrides, in the file GNUmakefile
(or, on case-sensitive systems, makefile) to set compilation choices.
However, writing
TRANSLATION := de_DE
include Makefile
did not work, because py.mk would override the TRANSLATION := specified
in an earlier part of the makefiles (but not from the commandline).
By using ?= instead of := the local makefile override works, but when
TRANSLATION is not specified it continues to work as before.
This ensures that only the translate("") alternative that will be used
is seen after preprocessing. Improves the quality of the Huffman encoding
and reduces binary size slightly.
Also makes one "enhanced" error message only occur when ERROR_REPORTING_DETAILED:
Instead of the word-for-word python3 error message
"Type object has no attribute '%q'", the message will be
"'type' object has no attribute '%q'". Also reduces binary size.
(that's rolled into this commit as it was right next to a change to
use the preprocessor for MICROPY_ERROR_REPORTING)
Note that the odd semicolon after "value_error:" in parsenum.c is necessary
due to a detail of the C grammar, in which a declaration cannot follow
a label directly.
This reclaims over 1kB of flash space by simplifying certain exception
messages. e.g., it will no longer display the requested/actual length
when a fixed list/tuple of N items is needed:
if (MICROPY_ERROR_REPORTING == MICROPY_ERROR_REPORTING_TERSE) {
mp_raise_ValueError(translate("tuple/list has wrong length"));
} else {
mp_raise_ValueError_varg(translate("requested length %d but object has length %d"),
(int)len, (int)seq_len);
Other chip families including samd51 keep their current error reporting
capabilities.
* No weak link for modules. It only impacts _os and _time and is
already disabled for non-full builds.
* Turn off PA00 and PA01 because they are the crystal on the Metro
M0 Express.
* Change ejected default to false to move it to BSS. It is set on
USB connection anyway.
* Set sinc_filter to const. Doesn't help flash but keeps it out of
RAM.
This gets a further speedup of about 2s (12s -> 9.5s elapsed build time)
for stm32f405_feather
For what are probably historical reasons, the qstr process involves
preprocessing a large number of source files into a single "qstr.i.last"
file, then reading this and splitting it into one "qstr" file for each
original source ("*.c") file.
By eliminating the step of writing qstr.i.last as well as making the
regular-expression-matching part be parallelized, build speed is further
improved.
Because the step to build QSTR_DEFS_COLLECTED does not access
qstr.i.last, the path is replaced with "-" in the Makefile.
Rather than simply invoking gcc in preprocessor mode with a list of files, use
a Python script with the (python3) ThreadPoolExecutor to invoke the
preprocessor in parallel.
The amount of concurrency is the number of system CPUs, not the makefile "-j"
parallelism setting, because there is no simple and correct way for a Python
program to correctly work together with make's idea of parallelism.
This reduces the build time of stm32f405 feather (a non-LTO build) from 16s to
12s on my 16-thread Ryzen machine.
Some examples of improved compliance with CPython that currently
have divergent behavior in CircuitPython are listed below:
* yield from is not allowed in async methods
```
>>> async def f():
... yield from 'abc'
...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 2, in f
SyntaxError: 'yield from' inside async function
```
* await only works on awaitable expressions
```
>>> async def f():
... await 'not awaitable'
...
>>> f().send(None)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 2, in f
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute '__await__'
```
* only __await__()able expressions are awaitable
Okay this one actually does not work in circuitpython at all today.
This is how CPython works though and pretending __await__ does not
exist will only bite users who write both.
```
>>> class c:
... pass
...
>>> def f(self):
... yield
... yield
... return 'f to pay respects'
...
>>> c.__await__ = f # could just as easily have put it on the class but this shows how it's wired
>>> async def g():
... awaitable_thing = c()
... partial = await awaitable_thing
... return 'press ' + partial
...
>>> q = g()
>>> q.send(None)
>>> q.send(None)
>>> q.send(None)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
StopIteration: press f to pay respects
```
This adds the `async def` and `await` verbs to valid CircuitPython syntax using the Micropython implementation.
Consider:
```
>>> class Awaitable:
... def __iter__(self):
... for i in range(3):
... print('awaiting', i)
... yield
... return 42
...
>>> async def wait_for_it():
... a = Awaitable()
... result = await a
... return result
...
>>> task = wait_for_it()
>>> next(task)
awaiting 0
>>> next(task)
awaiting 1
>>> next(task)
awaiting 2
>>> next(task)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
StopIteration: 42
>>>
```
and more excitingly:
```
>>> async def it_awaits_a_subtask():
... value = await wait_for_it()
... print('twice as good', value * 2)
...
>>> task = it_awaits_a_subtask()
>>> next(task)
awaiting 0
>>> next(task)
awaiting 1
>>> next(task)
awaiting 2
>>> next(task)
twice as good 84
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
StopIteration:
```
Note that this is just syntax plumbing, not an all-encompassing implementation of an asynchronous task scheduler or asynchronous hardware apis.
uasyncio might be a good module to bring in, or something else - but the standard Python syntax does not _strictly require_ deeper hardware
support.
Micropython implements the await verb via the __iter__ function rather than __await__. It's okay.
The syntax being present will enable users to write clean and expressive multi-step state machines that are written serially and interleaved
according to the rules provided by those users.
Given that this does not include an all-encompassing C scheduler, this is expected to be an advanced functionality until the community settles
on the future of deep hardware support for async/await in CircuitPython. Users will implement yield-based schedulers and tasks wrapping
synchronous hardware APIs with polling to avoid blocking, while their application business logic gets simple `await` statements.
