Skip to content

R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods #76513

Open
Open
R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods#76513
Labels
area-ReadyToRun
Milestone
Future

Description

@jakobbotsch
jakobbotsch
opened on Oct 2, 2022

I noticed that we spend a lot of JIT time and image size on ValueTuple methods in R2R:
https://gist.github.com/jakobbotsch/84a4525207268577fddb1b174b8ea63d

It seems these end up being rooted due to e.g.

runtime/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TupleExtensions.cs

Lines 679 to 689 in 144a33a

/// <summary>
/// Make a properly nested <see cref="ValueTuple"/> from a properly nested <see cref="Tuple"/> with 21 elements.
/// </summary>
publicstaticValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,ValueTuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,ValueTuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>
ToValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>(
thisTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,Tuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,Tuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>value)
{
returnCreateLong(value.Item1,value.Item2,value.Item3,value.Item4,value.Item5,value.Item6,value.Item7,
CreateLong(value.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Item7,
ValueTuple.Create(value.Rest.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Rest.Item7)));
}

Skipping ToValueTuple and ToTuple methods avoids the root and reduces the size of SPC by around 2% on win-x64. It feels like a safe bet that most of these overloads are not going to be used in most applications, so skipping them would be fruitful in terms of deployment size.

It would also be nice to collect some data such as "X method is responsible for rooting Y bytes in the final image" and see if there are more cases like this that we should consider skipping.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    area-ReadyToRun

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    AppModel
    Status
    No status

    Milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods · Issue #76513 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
    Skip to content
    R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods #76513
    Open
    Open
    R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods#76513
    Labels
    area-ReadyToRun
    Milestone
    Future
    Description
    @jakobbotsch
    jakobbotsch
    opened on Oct 2, 2022
    I noticed that we spend a lot of JIT time and image size on ValueTuple methods in R2R:
    https://gist.github.com/jakobbotsch/84a4525207268577fddb1b174b8ea63d
    It seems these end up being rooted due to e.g. 
    runtime/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TupleExtensions.cs
    
Lines 679 to 689
in
144a33a
    /// <summary>
    /// Make a properly nested <see cref="ValueTuple"/> from a properly nested <see cref="Tuple"/> with 21 elements.
    /// </summary>
    publicstaticValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,ValueTuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,ValueTuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>
    ToValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>(
    thisTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,Tuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,Tuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>value)
    {
    returnCreateLong(value.Item1,value.Item2,value.Item3,value.Item4,value.Item5,value.Item6,value.Item7,
    CreateLong(value.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Item7,
    ValueTuple.Create(value.Rest.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Rest.Item7)));
    }
    Skipping ToValueTuple and ToTuple methods avoids the root and reduces the size of SPC by around 2% on win-x64. It feels like a safe bet that most of these overloads are not going to be used in most applications, so skipping them would be fruitful in terms of deployment size.
    It would also be nice to collect some data such as "X method is responsible for rooting Y bytes in the final image" and see if there are more cases like this that we should consider skipping.
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    No one assigned
      Labels
      area-ReadyToRun
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      AppModel
      Status
      No status
      Milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods · Issue #76513 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
      Skip to content
      R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods #76513
      Open
      Open
      R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods#76513
      Labels
      area-ReadyToRun
      Milestone
      Future
      Description
      @jakobbotsch
      jakobbotsch
      opened on Oct 2, 2022
      I noticed that we spend a lot of JIT time and image size on ValueTuple methods in R2R:
      https://gist.github.com/jakobbotsch/84a4525207268577fddb1b174b8ea63d
      It seems these end up being rooted due to e.g. 
      runtime/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TupleExtensions.cs
      
Lines 679 to 689
in
144a33a
      /// <summary>
      /// Make a properly nested <see cref="ValueTuple"/> from a properly nested <see cref="Tuple"/> with 21 elements.
      /// </summary>
      publicstaticValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,ValueTuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,ValueTuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>
      ToValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>(
      thisTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,Tuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,Tuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>value)
      {
      returnCreateLong(value.Item1,value.Item2,value.Item3,value.Item4,value.Item5,value.Item6,value.Item7,
      CreateLong(value.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Item7,
      ValueTuple.Create(value.Rest.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Rest.Item7)));
      }
      Skipping ToValueTuple and ToTuple methods avoids the root and reduces the size of SPC by around 2% on win-x64. It feels like a safe bet that most of these overloads are not going to be used in most applications, so skipping them would be fruitful in terms of deployment size.
      It would also be nice to collect some data such as "X method is responsible for rooting Y bytes in the final image" and see if there are more cases like this that we should consider skipping.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        area-ReadyToRun
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        AppModel
        Status
        No status
        Milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods · Issue #76513 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
        Skip to content
        R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods #76513
        Open
        Open
        R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods#76513
        Labels
        area-ReadyToRun
        Milestone
        Future
        Description
        @jakobbotsch
        jakobbotsch
        opened on Oct 2, 2022
        I noticed that we spend a lot of JIT time and image size on ValueTuple methods in R2R:
        https://gist.github.com/jakobbotsch/84a4525207268577fddb1b174b8ea63d
        It seems these end up being rooted due to e.g. 
        runtime/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TupleExtensions.cs
        
Lines 679 to 689
in
144a33a
        /// <summary>
        /// Make a properly nested <see cref="ValueTuple"/> from a properly nested <see cref="Tuple"/> with 21 elements.
        /// </summary>
        publicstaticValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,ValueTuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,ValueTuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>
        ToValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>(
        thisTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,Tuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,Tuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>value)
        {
        returnCreateLong(value.Item1,value.Item2,value.Item3,value.Item4,value.Item5,value.Item6,value.Item7,
        CreateLong(value.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Item7,
        ValueTuple.Create(value.Rest.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Rest.Item7)));
        }
        Skipping ToValueTuple and ToTuple methods avoids the root and reduces the size of SPC by around 2% on win-x64. It feels like a safe bet that most of these overloads are not going to be used in most applications, so skipping them would be fruitful in terms of deployment size.
        It would also be nice to collect some data such as "X method is responsible for rooting Y bytes in the final image" and see if there are more cases like this that we should consider skipping.
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        No one assigned
          Labels
          area-ReadyToRun
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          AppModel
          Status
          No status
          Milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods · Issue #76513 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
          Skip to content
          R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods #76513
          Open
          Open
          R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods#76513
          Labels
          area-ReadyToRun
          Milestone
          Future
          Description
          @jakobbotsch
          jakobbotsch
          opened on Oct 2, 2022
          I noticed that we spend a lot of JIT time and image size on ValueTuple methods in R2R:
          https://gist.github.com/jakobbotsch/84a4525207268577fddb1b174b8ea63d
          It seems these end up being rooted due to e.g. 
          runtime/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TupleExtensions.cs
          
Lines 679 to 689
in
144a33a
          /// <summary>
          /// Make a properly nested <see cref="ValueTuple"/> from a properly nested <see cref="Tuple"/> with 21 elements.
          /// </summary>
          publicstaticValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,ValueTuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,ValueTuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>
          ToValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>(
          thisTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,Tuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,Tuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>value)
          {
          returnCreateLong(value.Item1,value.Item2,value.Item3,value.Item4,value.Item5,value.Item6,value.Item7,
          CreateLong(value.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Item7,
          ValueTuple.Create(value.Rest.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Rest.Item7)));
          }
          Skipping ToValueTuple and ToTuple methods avoids the root and reduces the size of SPC by around 2% on win-x64. It feels like a safe bet that most of these overloads are not going to be used in most applications, so skipping them would be fruitful in terms of deployment size.
          It would also be nice to collect some data such as "X method is responsible for rooting Y bytes in the final image" and see if there are more cases like this that we should consider skipping.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            area-ReadyToRun
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            AppModel
            Status
            No status
            Milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods · Issue #76513 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
            Skip to content
            R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods #76513
            Open
            Open
            R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods#76513
            Labels
            area-ReadyToRun
            Milestone
            Future
            Description
            @jakobbotsch
            jakobbotsch
            opened on Oct 2, 2022
            I noticed that we spend a lot of JIT time and image size on ValueTuple methods in R2R:
            https://gist.github.com/jakobbotsch/84a4525207268577fddb1b174b8ea63d
            It seems these end up being rooted due to e.g. 
            runtime/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TupleExtensions.cs
            
Lines 679 to 689
in
144a33a
            /// <summary>
            /// Make a properly nested <see cref="ValueTuple"/> from a properly nested <see cref="Tuple"/> with 21 elements.
            /// </summary>
            publicstaticValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,ValueTuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,ValueTuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>
            ToValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>(
            thisTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,Tuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,Tuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>value)
            {
            returnCreateLong(value.Item1,value.Item2,value.Item3,value.Item4,value.Item5,value.Item6,value.Item7,
            CreateLong(value.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Item7,
            ValueTuple.Create(value.Rest.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Rest.Item7)));
            }
            Skipping ToValueTuple and ToTuple methods avoids the root and reduces the size of SPC by around 2% on win-x64. It feels like a safe bet that most of these overloads are not going to be used in most applications, so skipping them would be fruitful in terms of deployment size.
            It would also be nice to collect some data such as "X method is responsible for rooting Y bytes in the final image" and see if there are more cases like this that we should consider skipping.
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            No one assigned
              Labels
              area-ReadyToRun
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              AppModel
              Status
              No status
              Milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
})();
R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods · Issue #76513 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
              Skip to content
              R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods #76513
              Open
              Open
              R2R image of SPC has many costly ValueTuple methods#76513
              Labels
              area-ReadyToRun
              Milestone
              Future
              Description
              @jakobbotsch
              jakobbotsch
              opened on Oct 2, 2022
              I noticed that we spend a lot of JIT time and image size on ValueTuple methods in R2R:
              https://gist.github.com/jakobbotsch/84a4525207268577fddb1b174b8ea63d
              It seems these end up being rooted due to e.g. 
              runtime/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TupleExtensions.cs
              
Lines 679 to 689
in
144a33a
              /// <summary>
              /// Make a properly nested <see cref="ValueTuple"/> from a properly nested <see cref="Tuple"/> with 21 elements.
              /// </summary>
              publicstaticValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,ValueTuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,ValueTuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>
              ToValueTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>(
              thisTuple<T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7,Tuple<T8,T9,T10,T11,T12,T13,T14,Tuple<T15,T16,T17,T18,T19,T20,T21>>>value)
              {
              returnCreateLong(value.Item1,value.Item2,value.Item3,value.Item4,value.Item5,value.Item6,value.Item7,
              CreateLong(value.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Item7,
              ValueTuple.Create(value.Rest.Rest.Item1,value.Rest.Rest.Item2,value.Rest.Rest.Item3,value.Rest.Rest.Item4,value.Rest.Rest.Item5,value.Rest.Rest.Item6,value.Rest.Rest.Item7)));
              }
              Skipping ToValueTuple and ToTuple methods avoids the root and reduces the size of SPC by around 2% on win-x64. It feels like a safe bet that most of these overloads are not going to be used in most applications, so skipping them would be fruitful in terms of deployment size.
              It would also be nice to collect some data such as "X method is responsible for rooting Y bytes in the final image" and see if there are more cases like this that we should consider skipping.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                area-ReadyToRun
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                AppModel
                Status
                No status
                Milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions