Annotate methods that get MethodBase from a stackwalk as RUC #59851
Conversation
Fixes dotnet#53242. Saddened this didn't make .NET 6.0. Stack traces in trimmed apps look ugly without this fix: ``` Unhandled exception. System.ArgumentNullException: Value cannot be null. (Parameter 'id') at System.TimeZoneInfo.ValidateTimeZoneInfo(String , TimeSpan , AdjustmentRule[] , Boolean& ) at System.TimeZoneInfo..ctor(String , TimeSpan , String , String , String , AdjustmentRule[] , Boolean , Boolean ) at System.TimeZoneInfo.CreateCustomTimeZone(String , TimeSpan , String , String ) at Program.<Main>$(String[] args) in C:\stacktrace\Program.cs:line 3 ```
|
Note regarding the This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, to 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. |
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @vitek-karas, @agocke, @VSadov Issue DetailsFixes #53242. Saddened this didn't make .NET 6.0. Stack traces in trimmed apps look ugly without this fix:
|
Co-authored-by: Jan Kotas <jkotas@microsoft.com>
| @@ -301,8 +303,12 @@ internal void ToString(TraceFormat traceFormat, StringBuilder sb) | |||
| if (pi[j].ParameterType != null) | |||
| typeName = pi[j].ParameterType.Name; | |||
| sb.Append(typeName); | |||
| sb.Append(' '); | |||
| sb.Append(pi[j].Name); | |||
| string? parameterName = pi[j].Name; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Possible future improvement: I vaguely remember discussing this: Would it make sense to add RUC onto the ParameterInfo.Name? I know it can be null even without trimming, but it is an observable difference with trimming.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ILLink will not strip parameter names from things that are visible targets of reflection. By adding RUC on all APIs that get MethodBase from a stack walk, we cover all scenarios where stripping parameter names could be an observable difference (it's the API that lets you get hold of a broken MethodBase in the first place).
Since there will be a warning on getting the MethodBase, we don't need another warning on Name.
This sets us also up to do attribute stripping correctly, similar to how we strip the parameter names: https://github.com/dotnet/linker/issues/2078 - we can remove known "useless" custom attributes from methods/fields that are not visible targets of reflection for the same reason it's safe to strip parameter names and it will not cause any warningless runtime behavior differences.
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Fixes #53242. Saddened this didn't make .NET 6.0.
Stack traces in trimmed apps look ugly without this fix: