revert ordering change to address PR feedback #45964
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @eerhardt, @maryamariyan Issue DetailsIn #45563 I've removed some allocations related to storing CacheEntry scopes but also changed the order of exiting the scope. This PR reverts the ordering change based on feedback from @davidfowl So we are back to the "old order" but we still avoid a call to the expensive
|
stephentoub
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2021
Member
stephentoub
left a comment
stephentoub
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assuming David's cool with it, LGTM.
davidfowl
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2021
eerhardt
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2021
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #45563 I've removed some allocations related to storing CacheEntry scopes but also changed the order of exiting the scope.
This PR reverts the ordering change based on feedback from @davidfowl
So we are back to the "old order" but we still avoid a call to the expensive
CacheEntryHelper.Currentby taking advantage of having this value stored in_previousfield.#45563 (comment)