Preserve ILTrim layout fields - #134083
Draft
jtschuster wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
jtschuster wants to merge 1 commit into
jtschuster wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
jtschuster
added this pull request to stack #134091
September 16, 2026 17:44
|
Azure Pipelines: Successfully started running 4 pipeline(s). 12 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions. There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run. |
Contributor
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @agocke, @dotnet/illink |
jtschuster
removed this pull request from stack #134091
September 17, 2026 17:27
jtschuster
force-pushed
the
dev/jtschuster-copilot/ILTrim/layout-field-retention
branch
from
September 17, 2026 17:27
6d6d8e6 to
6e99ba9
Compare
jtschuster
added this pull request to stack #134146
September 17, 2026 17:28
jkoritzinsky
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need/have tests for structs with layout? What about structs with auto layout (shouldn't have the same requirements).
Comment on lines
+30
to
+31
| return typeDef.Attributes.HasFlag(TypeAttributes.SequentialLayout) | ||
| || typeDef.Attributes.HasFlag(TypeAttributes.ExplicitLayout); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should also support "extended layout" here.
Comment on lines
+43
to
+44
| (declaringTypeMetadata.Attributes.HasFlag(TypeAttributes.SequentialLayout) | ||
| || declaringTypeMetadata.Attributes.HasFlag(TypeAttributes.ExplicitLayout))) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| (declaringTypeMetadata.Attributes.HasFlag(TypeAttributes.SequentialLayout) | |
| || declaringTypeMetadata.Attributes.HasFlag(TypeAttributes.ExplicitLayout))) | |
| LayoutTypeNode.IsLayoutType(declaringTypeDefinition)) |
Squash accepted iteration-8 slot 1 from aa5683065d2e2c2f0ad6c8684ba709e5c23ed9ec. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: e06ebffa-ad53-49ba-b7aa-2efb4ee16d92
jtschuster
force-pushed
the
dev/jtschuster-copilot/ILTrim/layout-field-retention
branch
from
September 17, 2026 22:28
6e99ba9 to
2ea87ae
Compare
This branch has not been deployed
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
2 participants
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.
The draft PRs in this stack I haven't reviewed myself and don't expect anyone else to until I mark them ready for review (unless you want to). If the tags are causing too much noise for anyone I can move them to my fork until their ready.
Layer 5 of 12 in the ILTrim expected-failure reduction stack.
Preserve fields for sequential and explicit-layout types across construction and reflection-visible paths, including inherited layout fields.
Stack-top validation
./build.sh tools+tools.ilasm+tools.illinktests+tools.cdactests -testpassed with 0 warnings and 0 errors.Stack created with GitHub Stacks CLI • Give Feedback 💬
Note
This PR description was generated by GitHub Copilot.