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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow reference types for pinned GC.AllocateArray() #89293
Allow reference types for pinned GC.AllocateArray() #89293
Changes from 11 commits
d579879
5fc9157
376fb89
808d582
ea6de35
c403266
30fd375
13fe7a1
3aeca6b
2e502dc
d7dfad7
3a1bca6
4b805e5
f3aff36
349970a
bfe62ec
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why did you change
RuntimeTypeHandle.ToIntPtr
toRuntimeTypeHandle.Value
?RuntimeTypeHandle.ToIntPtr
is JIT intrinsic so it will be optimized to just loading a constant in most cases.RuntimeTypeHandle.Value
does not have that optimization. This change may cause a perf regression.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh! I had no idea it was an intrinsic, how is that discoverable?
I changed it to be identical to the similar usage just below: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/89293/files/d7dfad7341d828be78b09cbe1e49e696d09fac4c#diff-63ddcf9eb1f63c1ddef526934b79b086b1d30883f3293847bf966d047bc7666dR781
Perhaps the should instead revert this line and change the other to use the intrinsic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
JIT intrinsics are marked with
[Intrinsic]
attributes.Agree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, I'll do the change once I get closure on the other discussion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a specific reason for this? It looks like trying to fiddle with offsets and alignment. I tend to avoid these kind of mechanisms in tests without a comment as to the why.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was a simple way of increasing the size of the struct, making it less trivially laid out and requiring padding bits - to add a bit of confidence in we're not just overwriting the first set of bytes in a memory location.
We could add a comment or just remove it, it's not required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think a non-generic struct like this would be sufficient for what you are trying to test here