[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n 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;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Skip to content

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Skip to content

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
Skip to content

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode - #90616

Merged
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1
Aug 16, 2023
Merged

[release/8.0-rc1] Annotate System.Linq.Expressions with RequiresDynamicCode#90616
carlossanlop merged 11 commits into
release/8.0-rc1from
backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1

Conversation

@github-actions

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot commented Aug 15, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

System.Linq.Expressions is a complicated area for Native AOT. Optimized compilation is not supported at all, but interpretation is. However, even with that, array creation and lifting of custom operators are not supported. This PR annotates array creation and disables custom operator lifting via a feature switch.

Notably, this does present a breaking change if you were relying on nullable lifting on custom operators in expression trees. There is no workaround in this situation. This feature is not supported in Native AOT.

Testing

Running existing unit tests and integration tests under Native AOT.

Risk

Low. This is an AOT-only change and mostly annotation-only.

agockeand others added 11 commits August 15, 2023 17:40
All this ended up with an RUC on Expression.Compile due to new arrays.
I could potentially silence this warning with a feature flag, but it is a
real risk, and one that users could maybe work around if alterted to the problem.
…ons/Expression.cs
Co-authored-by: Eric Erhardt <eric.erhardt@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Toub <stoub@microsoft.com>
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@agockeagocke added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Aug 15, 2023
@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Issue Details

Backport of #90456 to release/8.0-rc1

/cc @agocke

Customer Impact

Testing

Risk

IMPORTANT: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that:

  • The PR target branch is release/X.0-staging, not release/X.0.

  • If the change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, you have added the necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.

Author:github-actions[bot]
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-System.Linq.Expressions, new-api-needs-documentation

Milestone:-

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke do these changes have any app size implications?
Additionally, can we run runtime-extra-platforms as well?

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@agockeagocke added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Aug 15, 2023
@carlossanlop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The CI has failures. Is any of them related to this PR? If not, let me know so I can merge it (please don't click on "Update branch").

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

None of the failures seem related. I think this is good to merge.

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thank you for verifying runtime-extra-platforms runs!

@ivanpovazan This shouldn't have any material impact on size either way. It'll root Nullable<T> for the standard primitive types, but those were almost certainly rooted already.

Just for the reference: I did a quick check with a sample iOS application referencing System.Linq.Expressions and the binary size slightly goes up by ~50Kb with this change, which is ~0,4% size regression.

@carlossanlop
carlossanlop merged commit c79f02a into release/8.0-rc1Aug 16, 2023
@carlossanlop
carlossanlop deleted the backport/pr-90456-to-release/8.0-rc1 branch August 16, 2023 15:32
@eerhardt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks for getting this into .NET 8, @agocke.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

@ivanpovazan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivanpovazan That still seems negligible, but slightly more than I expected. Did you happen to confirm that the only difference is the types I mentioned?

I will try to do a diff with sizoscope and post it here, but probably tomorrow.

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 17, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@agocke

  • Here is the detailed size comparison:
HelloiOS + TestLinqExpressionsmainPRdiff (%)diff (Kb)
Binary size on disk12731024127811600,39%50,14
  • Sizoscope diff (left - main, right - PR)

sle_cmp

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

@ivanpovazan

ivanpovazan commented Aug 18, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I repeated the measurements with a console app built on osx-arm64 and the difference is 16Kb. Still not sure about the extra 8Kb on Mac, but the extra bytes noticed on iOS seem to come from the fact that the bundler we internally use does not fully strip symbols from the iOS application (stripping only local symbols) - this is not the case with Xamarin builds, which properly strip all the symbols.

That being said, sorry for the false alarm regarding iOS size bump.

@agocke

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No problem -- thanks for the info. I thought I fixed the linker size issue, I may still need to look into it more.

@MichalStrehovsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, weird, the sizoscope difference shows 8 KB, which is closer to what I expected, instead of 50. @MichalStrehovsky might have some insight when he gets back

Sizoscope/mstat doesn't capture everything in the executable but the size is usually proportional. You can get a closer view with IlcGenerateMapFile - the sizes of blobs that mstat cant account for might tell more.

@radicalradical mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@ivanpovazan@agocke@carlossanlop@eerhardt@MichalStrehovsky@cston