Skip to content

Conversation

@TIHan
Copy link
Contributor

@TIHan TIHan commented Oct 21, 2020

In order to make the compiler more concurrent safe, we needed to make several uses of Dictionary types be ConcurrentDictionary types. Remaining uses of Dictionary types have a comment noting why they are safe.

@TIHan TIHan closed this Oct 21, 2020
@TIHan TIHan reopened this Oct 21, 2020
@TIHan TIHan mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2020
8 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@cartermp cartermp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great!

Copy link
Contributor

@KevinRansom KevinRansom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, I do wonder, why a couple of tests changed the range, is it a quality of the dictionary type, or did something else subtle change.

("Property", ["member"; "prop"])]
let results = [ for x in classTypeDefn.MembersFunctionsAndValues -> x.LogicalName, attribsOfSymbol x ]
[(".ctor", ["member"; "ctor"]);
("get_Property", ["member"; "getter"]);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Elsewhere these are indented.

Copy link
Contributor

@dsyme dsyme left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a few changes requested

@KevinRansom
Copy link
Contributor

I added this issue: #10342 to manage the possible dictionary storage order dependency.

Copy link
Contributor

@dsyme dsyme left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I looked again and no changes are needed

@dsyme dsyme merged commit 381b22a into dotnet:main Oct 27, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants