Makes the behavoral change of #13263 without the underlying refactor.
Hopefully this clearly safe from a perf and GC perspective, and will
make it easier to benchmark #13263.
Clang doesn't like the double indent that is needed for the `if...else`
that is CPP'd away. Adding braces is fine in the `if...else...` case,
and fine as a naked block in the CPP'd away case, and properly-indented
both ways.
This is the utility changes from #9968, which were easier to rebase
first.
I (@Ericson2314) didn't write this code; I just rebased it.
Co-Authored-By: Artemis Tosini <me@artem.ist>
Co-Authored-By: Audrey Dutcher <audrey@rhelmot.io>
This method does *not* create a new type of goal. We instead just make
`DerivationGoal` more sophisticated, which is much easier to do now that
`DerivationBuildingGoal` has been split from it (and so many fields are
gone, or or local variables instead).
This avoids the need for a secondarily trampoline goal that interacted
poorly with `addWantedOutputs`. That, I hope, will mean the bugs from
before do not reappear.
There may in fact be a reason to introduce such a trampoline in the
future, but it would only happen in conjunction with getting rid of
`addWantedOutputs`.
Restores the functionality (and tests) that was reverted in
f4f28cdd0e.
Cherry-pick https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/2100
This change fixes a potential concurrency failure when accessing random
which is not thread safe.
Co-authored-by: Lily Ballard <lily@ballards.net>
Try to make `DerivationGoal` care less whether we're working from an
in-memory derivation or not.
It's a clean-up in its own right, but it will also help with other
cleanups under the umbrella of #12628.
Now, each class provides the initial coroutine by value. This avoids
some sketchy virtual function stuff, and will also be further put to
good use in the next commit.
As summarized in
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/77#issuecomment-2843228280 the
motivation is that the complicated retry logic this introduced was
making the cleanup task #12628 harder to accomplish. It was not easy to
ascertain just what policy / semantics the extra control-flow was
implementing, in order to figure out a different way to implementing it
either.
After talking to Eelco about it, he decided we could just....get rid of
the feature entirely! It's a bit scary removing a decade+ old feature,
but I think he is right. See the release notes for more explanation.
This reverts commit 299141ecbd.
Co-authored-by: Eelco Dolstra <edolstra@gmail.com>
Leverage #10766 to show how we can now resolve a store configuration
without actually opening the store for that resolved configuration.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
The existing header is a bit too big. Now the following use-cases are
separated, and get their own headers:
- Using or implementing an arbitrary store: remaining `store-api.hh`
This is closer to just being about the `Store` (and `StoreConfig`)
classes, as one would expect.
- Opening a store from a textual description: `store-open.hh`
Opening an aribtrary store implementation like this requires some sort
of store registration mechanism to exists, but the caller doesn't need
to know how it works. This just exposes the functions which use such a
mechanism, without exposing the mechanism itself
- Registering a store implementation: `store-registration.hh`
This requires understanding how the mechanism actually works, and the
mechanism in question involves templated machinery in headers we
rather not expose to things that don't need it, as it would slow down
compilation for no reason.
