* Set accepted EULA version to max value
CFG: write the max value of 0x7F7F to the default cfg savegame and
auto update on init
CECD: Actually read the EULA version from CFG
* HTTP_C: Implement SetClientCertContext and GetSSLError; Stubbed BeginRequest and BeginRequestAsync
* HTTP_C: Move logs to beginning of function calls
Keeps the return type consistent with the function name. While we're at
it, we can also reduce the amount of boilerplate involved with handling
these by using structured bindings.
Some objects declare their handle type as const, while others declare it
as constexpr. This makes the const ones constexpr for consistency, and
prevent unexpected compilation errors if these happen to be attempted to be
used within a constexpr context.
Uses arithmetic that can be identified more trivially by compilers for
optimizations. e.g. Rather than shifting the halves of the value and
then swapping and combining them, we can swap them in place.
e.g. for the original swap32 code on x86-64, clang 8.0 would generate:
mov ecx, edi
rol cx, 8
shl ecx, 16
shr edi, 16
rol di, 8
movzx eax, di
or eax, ecx
ret
while GCC 8.3 would generate the ideal:
mov eax, edi
bswap eax
ret
now both generate the same optimal output.
MSVC used to generate the following with the old code:
mov eax, ecx
rol cx, 8
shr eax, 16
rol ax, 8
movzx ecx, cx
movzx eax, ax
shl ecx, 16
or eax, ecx
ret 0
Now MSVC also generates a similar, but equally optimal result as clang/GCC:
bswap ecx
mov eax, ecx
ret 0
====
In the swap64 case, for the original code, clang 8.0 would generate:
mov eax, edi
bswap eax
shl rax, 32
shr rdi, 32
bswap edi
or rax, rdi
ret
(almost there, but still missing the mark)
while, again, GCC 8.3 would generate the more ideal:
mov rax, rdi
bswap rax
ret
now clang also generates the optimal sequence for this fallback as well.
This is a case where MSVC unfortunately falls short, despite the new
code, this one still generates a doozy of an output.
mov r8, rcx
mov r9, rcx
mov rax, 71776119061217280
mov rdx, r8
and r9, rax
and edx, 65280
mov rax, rcx
shr rax, 16
or r9, rax
mov rax, rcx
shr r9, 16
mov rcx, 280375465082880
and rax, rcx
mov rcx, 1095216660480
or r9, rax
mov rax, r8
and rax, rcx
shr r9, 16
or r9, rax
mov rcx, r8
mov rax, r8
shr r9, 8
shl rax, 16
and ecx, 16711680
or rdx, rax
mov eax, -16777216
and rax, r8
shl rdx, 16
or rdx, rcx
shl rdx, 16
or rax, rdx
shl rax, 8
or rax, r9
ret 0
which is pretty unfortunate.
Allows the compiler to inform when the result of a swap function is
being ignored (which is 100% a bug in all usage scenarios). We also mark
them noexcept to allow other functions using them to be able to be
marked as noexcept and play nicely with things that potentially inspect
"nothrowability".
Including every OS' own built-in byte swapping functions is kind of
undesirable, since it adds yet another build path to ensure compilation
succeeds on.
Given we only support clang, GCC, and MSVC for the time being, we can
utilize their built-in functions directly instead of going through the
OS's API functions.
This shrinks the overall code down to just
if (msvc)
use msvc's functions
else if (clang or gcc)
use clang/gcc's builtins
else
use the slow path
The template type here is actually a forwarding reference, not an rvalue
reference in this case, so it's more appropriate to use std::forward to
preserve the value category of the type being moved.
These can just be passed regularly, now that we use fmt instead of our
old logging system.
While we're at it, make the parameters to MakeFunctionString
std::string_views.
Reduces the potential amount of rebuilding necessary if any headers
change. In particular, we were including a header from the core library
when we don't even link the core library to the web_service library, so
this also gets rid of an indirect dependency.
Since C++17, the introduction of deduction guides for locking facilities
means that we no longer need to hardcode the mutex type into the locks
themselves, making it easier to switch mutex types, should it ever be
necessary in the future.
This reduces the boilerplate that services have to write out the current thread explicitly. Using current thread instead of client thread is also semantically incorrect, and will be a problem when we implement multicore (at which time there will be multiple current threads)
Weiyi Wang
Tobias
James Rowe
B3n30
Ben
liushuyu
Lioncash
Pengfei Zhu
tkeph616
ReinUsesLisp
Adityarup Laha
khang06