Delete parts of type system that deal with layouts #79366
Conversation
The layout of type is always the same as the template so we don't need the logic. This gets rid of uncertainities around "can I reliably ask type system questions around layouts" (see the deleted FieldLayoutAlgorithms). Now the answer is: "you can't ask those questions", which is better than "you could get an answer that you might not like" (an assert).
ghost
assigned 
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @agocke, @MichalStrehovsky, @jkotas Issue DetailsThe layout of type is always the same as the template so we don't need the logic. This gets rid of uncertainities around "can I reliably ask type system questions around layouts" (see the deleted FieldLayoutAlgorithms). Now the answer is: "you can't ask those questions", which is better than "you could get an answer that you might not like" (an assert). Cc @dotnet/ilc-contrib
|
|
|
||
| // Interfaces, sealed types, and non-DefTypes cannot be derived from | ||
| if (_type.IsInterface || !_type.IsDefType || (_type.IsSealed() && !_type.IsValueType)) | ||
| // Only valuetypes need to compute the padding. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will also be a small size saving - because of universal shared code, most MethodTables had rare flags with this value (making rare flags not so rare).
|
Filed #79387 for the segfault while installing build tools. |
The layout of type is always the same as the template so we don't need the logic. This gets rid of uncertainities around "can I reliably ask type system questions around layouts" (see the deleted FieldLayoutAlgorithms). Now the answer is: "you can't ask those questions", which is better than "you could get an answer that you might not like" (an assert).
Cc @dotnet/ilc-contrib