Improve Importer TryToUseMethodDefs and TryToUseFieldDefs options 2 #443
Conversation
This file contains 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
…lveMethod/TryResolveField will return inconsistent method/field.
|
It's better to use |
wtfsck
requested changes
Dec 29, 2021
I don't think it's necessary to check for |
True, but in this case only the name is compared and there's no public API that only compares the name. |
wtfsck
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2021
|
Thanks, merged! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Obfuscator may rename many methods/fields into same name then TryResolveMethod/TryResolveField will return inconsistent method/field.
Previous PR contains some problems and I fixed it. In previous PR you mentioned 'privatescope' visibility. I check some documents and find it is visible in the same module and can't be referenced in MemberRef table. I think these code won't get error when encountering 'privatescope' visibility. Should it be handled specially?