Prototype ESP8266 support - #122
Draft
willmmiles wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
Yes, it works.
|
Added BearSSL support for my project, can do a pull request if this goes through. commit 2d0a41b |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Believe it or not, basic support for the venerable ESP8266 required only fairly shallow changes to this library:
err_ttcpip_api_callCONFIG_LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKINGis set. It wasn't worth the extra code complexity to maintain two versions without some other advantage, though.Scheduleprimitive to simulate a task in the cooperative environment. Not the most efficient but functional.I did some very basic testing with the WebSocketsTest example in AsyncWebServer; it had no trouble with an overnight run. (It did require enabling progmem forgiveness but I have not yet looked at why.)
Opened more for discussion than anything else. If there's any interest in pursuing this, I'd suggest giving some thought to breaking
AsyncTCP.cppdown into smaller chunks - perhaps local headers - for easier management.Further thoughts:
Scheduleabuse: it requires an awful lot of heap traffic this way (specifically, an additional allocation per event). Possiblyschedule_recurrent_function_usoffers a cleaner generic "add something to a polling engine" API.