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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Support ref field declarations from source and metadata #60416
Support ref field declarations from source and metadata #60416
Changes from 5 commits
369bc83
cf131c6
92b6a1f
3e1744b
7dd1026
a8f002f
d976ff1
86ce692
b577fba
25aca66
31df2a5
5d1454d
ccbd365
67bb32d
e2dfd7a
de9cb6e
cf846f7
f82b475
345777b
b7bec5e
dc7e479
62ec54b
8cff50f
6bfd88c
8e51523
7c8b1e3
2f134c4
a49068d
e4527ab
e3fda91
fdee2df
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.
Consider comparing containing module instead. i.e.
Compilation.SourceModule != fieldSymbol.ContainingModule
#ClosedThere 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 to drop the assert? #Closed
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 looks like we are applying volatile semantics to the field as well as to the underlying value. Is this intentional? Perhaps specification should mention that explicitly. Based on the placement of the required custom modifier, it applies to the underlying value rather than to the ref. #Closed
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.
The spec has been updated to include the following:
And the test plan includes an item to disallow
volatile ref
fields.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 feels like ref-ness and ref-custom-modifiers should be taken into consideration #Closed
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've added checks for
RefKind
andRefCustomModifiers
, however it's not clear that we can hit a case where the decoded field does not match, even without the currentType
orCustomModifiers
comparisons.