Skip to content

Add note about backward branch constraints to ECMA-335 augments #70760

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
jkotas merged 1 commit into from
Jun 15, 2022
Merged

Add note about backward branch constraints to ECMA-335 augments #70760

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions docs/design/specs/Ecma-335-Augments.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ This is a list of additions and edits to be made in ECMA-335 specifications. It
- [Rules for IL rewriters](#rules-for-il-rewriters)
- [Checked user-defined operators](#checked-user-defined-operators)
- [Atomic reads and writes](#atomic-reads-and-writes)
- [Backward branch constraints](#backward-branch-constraints)

## Signatures

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1020,3 +1021,7 @@ A checked user-defined operator is expected to throw an exception when the resul
Section "I.12.6.6 Atomic reads and writes" adds clarification that the atomicity guarantees apply to built-in primitive value types and pointers only.

A conforming CLI shall guarantee that read and write access of *built-in primitive value types and pointers* to properly aligned memory locations no larger than the native word size (the size of type native int) is atomic (see §I.12.6.2) when all the write accesses to a location are the same size.

## Backward branch constraints

Section "II.1.7.5 Backward branch constraints" is deleted. These constraints were not enforced by any mainstream .NET runtime and they are not respected by .NET compilers. It means that it is not possible to infer the exact state of the evaluation stack at every instruction with a single forward-pass through the CIL instruction stream.
Copy link
Member

@VSadov VSadov Jun 16, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think Roslyn C# compiler was conforming to "one-pass". At least it used to conform when its backend/IL-generator was written. Things may have changed since then though.