Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Fix type layout diagnostics in the CoreCLR runtime #60305

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Fix type layout diagnostics in the CoreCLR runtime #60305

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c924a15
Fix type layout diagnostics in the CoreCLR runtime
trylek Oct 12, 2021
8731739
Move and improve code comment and the actual check per JanK's PR feed…
trylek Oct 12, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions src/coreclr/vm/jitinterface.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -13632,6 +13632,9 @@ BOOL LoadDynamicInfoEntry(Module *currentModule,
}
else
{
// Run through the type layout logic again to report the mismatch in lab logs and make debugging easy
TypeLayoutCheck(pMT, pBlob, /* printDiff */ TRUE);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was previously within a _DEBUG block. Should this be also?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As I described in my response to Jan Kotas' PR feedback, I originally put it under the _DEBUG block (admittedly in the wrong place after the assertion) as I viewed it as a tool specific to local debugging; the fix and the recent lab failure made me realize there's actually no reason to have it under the _DEBUG block - it doesn't incur any perf penalty (in the sense that it only happens when the app is about to crash anyway) and having it outside of the _DEBUG block makes us receive the same diagnostics for release runs too - I believe that to be a win-win situation, please let me know if you think otherwise.

Copy link
Member

@jkotas jkotas Oct 13, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The path only runs for ENCODE_VERIFY_TYPE_LAYOUT. The first call of TypeLayoutCheck runs with printDiff=TRUE for ENCODE_VERIFY_TYPE_LAYOUT.

I think the net effect of this change is going to be that the diff is going to be printed twice in the log if there is a mismatch.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, my bad, I was under the impression I don't see the mismatch in the log but apparently I just overlooked it. In such case this change is indeed superfluous as you say, I'll just close the PR. Thanks for pointing that out!


// Verification failures are failfast events
DefineFullyQualifiedNameForClassW();
SString fatalErrorString;
Expand All @@ -13642,8 +13645,6 @@ BOOL LoadDynamicInfoEntry(Module *currentModule,
{
StackScratchBuffer buf;
_ASSERTE_MSG(false, fatalErrorString.GetUTF8(buf));
// Run through the type layout logic again, after the assert, makes debugging easy
TypeLayoutCheck(pMT, pBlob, /* printDiff */ TRUE);
}
#endif

Expand Down