Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR implements a GetAppDomainName cDAC (Contract Debug Access Components) API that enables retrieval of AppDomain friendly names through the data contract reader system. This functionality allows debugging tools to access AppDomain names in a structured way rather than relying on legacy debugging interfaces.
Key changes:
- Adds
FriendlyNamefield support to the AppDomain data contract infrastructure - Implements the
GetFriendlyName()method in the Loader contract interface - Replaces the legacy implementation fallback with a full cDAC implementation in SOSDacImpl
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| SOSDacImpl.cs | Implements GetAppDomainName method with cDAC contracts and debug validation |
| AppDomain.cs | Adds FriendlyName property to AppDomain data structure |
| Loader_1.cs | Implements GetFriendlyName method in Loader contract |
| ILoader.cs | Adds GetFriendlyName method to ILoader interface |
| appdomain.hpp | Adds FriendlyName field offset to cdac_data structure |
| datadescriptor.h | Registers FriendlyName field in CDAC type definition |
| Loader.md | Documents the new GetFriendlyName API and data contract field |
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
docs/design/datacontracts/Loader.md:272
- Variable name 'pathStart' is misleading since it refers to the friendly name, not a path. Should be renamed to 'friendlyNamePtr' or similar.
TargetPointer pathStart = target.ReadPointer(handle.Address + /* AppDomain::FriendlyName offset */);
src/native/managed/cdac/mscordaccore_universal/Legacy/SOSDacImpl.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/native/managed/cdac/mscordaccore_universal/Legacy/SOSDacImpl.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @steveisok, @dotnet/dotnet-diag |
…pl.cs Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
max-charlamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be good once you get the tests to pass
|
This looks like some infrastructure timeouts + the one test failure looks similar to what you had been seeing with StackAndOtherTests |
No description provided.