4 ms·

You are free to believe this but if you want me to believe you, please provide official spec or code that says it works that way today. Because making your stat

You are free to believe this but if you want me to believe you, please provide official spec or code that says it works that way today. Because making your statements sound reasonable doesn't magically make them true - the truth is far removed from your statements, sorry for putting it bluntly. JIT never did proper escape analysis for object stack allocation except for the small proposal prototype implementation which the runtime team decided to put away for better times: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192 https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192 It is never enabled and will not work the way you expect it to even if you try. Huh, now that I think about it, this account might be posting messages generated by GPT-3 and I'm just wasting time.

WorldMaker 4y ago
The fundamentals of Value Types versus Reference Types: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/programming-guide/language-features/data-types/value-types-and-reference-types https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/program... What you linked is an issue regarding storing Reference Types (classes) in stack space. Again, there is a difference in .NET between a Reference Type and Value Type, and this is a fundamental dichotomy going back to the earliest days of .NET. I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack and suggest that you google any further follow ups yourself.
- neonsunset 4y ago
  C# arrays are 'object', aka "Reference Type". The only reason I'm responding the way I do is because GPT-3 is too known for writing elaborate texts despite consistently getting fundamentals wrong. Your previous reply directly contradicts runtime implementation so I see no reason to apologize for my statements. In addition, regarding Span<T> and other ref structs, they can hold any type and have no restriction to T : unmanaged. That's because objects by their nature of being on the heap are guaranteed to outlive the lifetime of any ref struct and the runtime supports tracking GC references held like this anyway.

WorldMaker 4y ago

The fundamentals of Value Types versus Reference Types: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/programming-guide/language-features/data-types/value-types-and-reference-types https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/program... What you linked is an issue regarding storing Reference Types (classes) in stack space. Again, there is a difference in .NET between a Reference Type and Value Type, and this is a fundamental dichotomy going back to the earliest days of .NET. I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack and suggest that you google any further follow ups yourself.

neonsunset 4y ago
C# arrays are 'object', aka "Reference Type". The only reason I'm responding the way I do is because GPT-3 is too known for writing elaborate texts despite consistently getting fundamentals wrong. Your previous reply directly contradicts runtime implementation so I see no reason to apologize for my statements. In addition, regarding Span<T> and other ref structs, they can hold any type and have no restriction to T : unmanaged. That's because objects by their nature of being on the heap are guaranteed to outlive the lifetime of any ref struct and the runtime supports tracking GC references held like this anyway.