JIT: Skip unnecessary binary VN folding checks by jakobbotsch · Pull Request #73919 · dotnet/runtime

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-14T18:20:16Z

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

ghost · 2022-08-14T18:20:30Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

For a lot of extremely common binary VN functions we do a series of
unnecessary folding checks, in particular VNF_ValWithExc and
VNF_ExcSetCons. Introduce a VNForFuncNoFolding and
VNPairForFuncNoFolding that bypasses folding and use it in some cases.

Author:	jakobbotsch
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	-

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:06Z

No asm diffs, -0.2% to -0.4% TP.

jakobbotsch · 2022-08-15T08:42:14Z

cc @dotnet/jit-contrib

AndyAyersMS

Looks good.

Wondering if the assert I suggested might help catch future cases where somebody bypasses folding when it would help.

AndyAyersMS · 2022-08-26T18:54:46Z

+ GetVNFunc2Map()->Set(fstruct, resultVN);
+ }
+ return resultVN;
+}


How costly/difficult would it be to assert that we get the same result here as if we'd tried folding?

I suppose in the debug build we can just call the regular version from the *NoFolding variant and validate that no folding occurred.

I did this but I'm not too happy with it since it bypasses the "normal" implementation of VNForFuncNoFolding in debug builds which seems scary. And since VNForFunc has side effects related to using the cache I'm not a big fan of using that in an assert either. I'll leave this as-is, in the worst case it is just going to be some missed opportunities anyway.

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

ghost added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Aug 14, 2022

ghost assigned jakobbotsch Aug 14, 2022

jakobbotsch added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Aug 15, 2022

jakobbotsch requested a review from AndyAyersMS August 24, 2022 10:56

jakobbotsch mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
JIT: Remove GT_NULLCHECK #71707
Closed

AndyAyersMS approved these changes Aug 26, 2022
View reviewed changes

jakobbotsch added 2 commits August 29, 2022 17:50

Validate no folding in debug builds
0994a23

Couple of cleanups
36e0155

jakobbotsch closed this Aug 31, 2022

jakobbotsch reopened this Aug 31, 2022

Revert previous commits
870f7d4

jakobbotsch merged commit 33704a5 into dotnet:mainSep 8, 2022

jakobbotsch deleted the opt-vn-for-func branch September 8, 2022 15:28

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2022

Uh oh!

Conversation

jakobbotsch commented Aug 14, 2022

Uh oh!

ghost commented Aug 14, 2022

Uh oh!

jakobbotsch commented Aug 15, 2022

Uh oh!

jakobbotsch commented Aug 15, 2022

Uh oh!

AndyAyersMS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jakobbotschSep 5, 2022• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

jakobbotsch commented Aug 14, 2022

Uh oh!

ghost commented Aug 14, 2022

Uh oh!

jakobbotsch commented Aug 15, 2022

Uh oh!

jakobbotsch commented Aug 15, 2022

Uh oh!

AndyAyersMS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jakobbotschSep 5, 2022• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

jakobbotsch commented Aug 14, 2022

Uh oh!

ghost commented Aug 14, 2022

Uh oh!

jakobbotsch commented Aug 15, 2022

Uh oh!

jakobbotsch commented Aug 15, 2022

Uh oh!

AndyAyersMS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jakobbotschSep 5, 2022• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

jakobbotschSep 5, 2022•
edited
Loading

jakobbotschSep 5, 2022•
edited
Loading

jakobbotschSep 5, 2022•
edited
Loading

jakobbotschSep 5, 2022•
edited
Loading