Skip to content

[clr-ios] Support targeting Apple mobile platforms with CoreCLR #51429

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
akoeplinger merged 2 commits into from
Oct 27, 2025
Merged

[clr-ios] Support targeting Apple mobile platforms with CoreCLR #51429

akoeplinger merged 2 commits into from
Oct 27, 2025

Conversation

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member

@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos commented Oct 23, 2025

Description

This PR adds Apple mobile rids to the NetCoreRuntimePackRids to support targeting CoreCLR.

@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos requested review from akoeplinger, Copilot and rolfbjarne and removed request for Copilot October 23, 2025 10:04
@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos self-assigned this Oct 23, 2025
@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2025
Closed
4 tasks
@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos changed the title Support targeting Apple mobile platforms with CoreCLR [clr-ios] Support targeting Apple mobile platforms with CoreCLR Oct 23, 2025
akoeplinger
akoeplinger approved these changes Oct 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@akoeplinger akoeplinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM apart from my comments

@rolfbjarne rolfbjarne mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Closed
rolfbjarne
rolfbjarne reviewed Oct 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings October 27, 2025 10:52
Copilot AI reviewed Oct 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds support for targeting Apple mobile platforms (iOS, tvOS, and Mac Catalyst) with CoreCLR by introducing new runtime identifiers (RIDs) for .NET 11.0.

Key Changes:

  • Introduces Net110RuntimePackRids containing Apple mobile platform RIDs (ios-arm64, iossimulator-arm64/x64, tvos-arm64, tvossimulator-arm64/x64, maccatalyst-arm64/x64)
  • Updates NetCoreRuntimePackRids to reference the new .NET 11.0 RID collection
  • Maintains backward compatibility by keeping .NET 10.0 RIDs for KnownFrameworkReference targeting pack references

@akoeplinger akoeplinger enabled auto-merge (squash) October 27, 2025 10:58
@akoeplinger akoeplinger merged commit 86e86be into dotnet:main Oct 27, 2025
25 of 27 checks passed
@build-analysis build-analysis bot mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Open
@dotnet-maestro dotnet-maestro bot mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2025
Merged
@MichaelSimons
Copy link
Member

MichaelSimons commented Nov 11, 2025 •
edited
Loading

This change regressed source build when it flowed into the VMR. Can someone explain this particular change? This causes this special SB logic to be skipped.

@rolfbjarne
Copy link
Member

rolfbjarne commented Nov 12, 2025

This change regressed source build when it flowed into the VMR. Can someone explain this particular change? This causes this special SB logic to be skipped.

That's how it's done in the .NET 9 case:

sdk/src/Layout/redist/targets/GenerateBundledVersions.targets

Line 824 in 1b7a79f

RuntimePackRuntimeIdentifiers="@(Net90RuntimePackRids, '%3B')"

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member Author

kotlarmilos commented Nov 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

This PR introduced Net110RuntimePackRids with new RIDs and updated NetCoreRuntimePackRids to reference Net110RuntimePackRids. Because of that, we had to update .NET 10 Microsoft.NETCore.App to reference Net100RuntimePackRids instead. This change should not affect the functionality of .NET 10. What regression did you experience?

@akoeplinger
Copy link
Member

akoeplinger commented Nov 12, 2025

@MichaelSimons the change is correct, but it's possibly causing some weirdness because we're still in this 11.0-but-actually-10.0-version state. we should take a closer look at what error it's causing in SB

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@rolfbjarne rolfbjarne rolfbjarne approved these changes

Copilot code review Copilot Copilot left review comments

@akoeplinger akoeplinger akoeplinger approved these changes

Assignees

@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@kotlarmilos @MichaelSimons @rolfbjarne @akoeplinger