> The new UnsafeAccessor attribute (introduced in and supported by dotnet/runtime#86932, dotnet/runt

The new UnsafeAccessor attribute (introduced in and supported by dotnet/runtime#86932, dotnet/runtime#88626, and dotnet/runtime#88925) lets you define an extern method that bypasses visibility. In this case, I’ve used it to get a ref to the private field, at which point I can just assign null through the ref.

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:39 AM

what the fuck

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:39 AM

you can't just hide this at the bottom

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:39 AM

on little endian anyway, it allocates once globally to convert on other endianness

Kkhitiara on little endian anyway, it allocates once globally to convert on other endianne...

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:39 AM

big endian users can get fucked

MMaxine > The new UnsafeAccessor attribute (introduced in and supported by dotnet/runtim...

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:39 AM

its an implementation detail of the benchmarks lol so they didnt want to draw attention

MMaxine big endian users can get fucked

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:39 AM

true

Kkhitiara its an implementation detail of the benchmarks lol so they didnt want to draw at...

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:40 AM

if i can avoid writing expression emit code for field access, that makes things cleaner

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:41 AM

also this avoids the overhead of a DynamicMethod not scoped to the same module

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:41 AM

which is a stupid thing to care about but FastExpressionCompiler cares about it so

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:42 AM

yeah i think they just want to try and not draw attention to it lmao

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:42 AM

but it is useful in some cases

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:42 AM

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:43 AM

defining an extern method that does private field modification is extremely the sort of thing you dont advertise because its so absurd and unsafe lmao

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:43 AM

IT'S FUN

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:43 AM

oh i agree

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:43 AM

im with you on this one lmao

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:43 AM

its just objectively not the sort of thing thats not getting advertised prominently

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 2:43 AM

i silly goofy with the obscure runtime errors

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:44 AM

lol

khitiara•9/14/23, 2:45 AM

Utf8.TryWrite is still by far my fav thing

PPerksey remembering the time that Sergio from the C# discord took down a CDN using stack...

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:13 AM

being cursed aside, that library looks pretty cool. i should fork it

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:14 AM

reminds me of protobuf

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:31 AM

CompositeFormat is such a pathetic optimization

khitiara•9/14/23, 3:32 AM

lmao

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:32 AM

no way this shit was anyone's bottleneck

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:32 AM

it turns an already pretty fast thing... slightly faster

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:33 AM

i also do my logging with an insane formattable string handler hack

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:34 AM

it goes against all good sense

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 3:34 AM

but it's an improvement against my previous source-generated static direct-to-console logging class with a condition for logging to file, with hardcoded formatting so that it didn't need to allocate strings

khitiara•9/14/23, 3:35 AM

it seems to be used in the internals of microsoft extensions logging abstractions

khitiara•9/14/23, 3:36 AM

because structured logging

khitiara•9/14/23, 3:36 AM

i think

khitiara•9/14/23, 3:36 AM

i honestly dont know lmao

dfkeenan🍍🍕•9/14/23, 4:04 AM

Wonder how long it will take Unity to put out this fire they started.

MaxineOP•9/14/23, 4:05 AM

oh it's so over for them

King•9/14/23, 6:53 AM

Yeah they’re never recovering from this. Even if they walk everything back, people won’t trust that they won’t pull this crap again later on

King•9/14/23, 6:54 AM

And that next thing might be even worse

King•9/14/23, 6:55 AM

Also this all revealed that they secretly modified their TOS to remove the portion that said “if you don’t like new license requirements you can decline them and just use an old version of unity”

King•9/14/23, 6:56 AM

So now they can add whatever stupid stuff they want to their license and it will take effect retroactively and you have no way to reject it

King•9/14/23, 6:57 AM

Which they proved by telling everyone that yeah you need to pay install fees now even if you released your game years ago

Kai•9/14/23, 7:28 AM

Re-install charges - we are not going to charge a fee for re-installs.
Fraudulent installs charges - we are not going to charge a fee for fraudulent installs. We will work directly with you on cases where fraud or botnets are suspected of malicious intent.
Trials, partial play demos, and automation installs (devops) charges - we are not going to count these toward your install count. Early access games are not considered demos.
Web and streaming games - we are not going to count web and streaming games toward your install count either.
Charity-related installs - the pricing change and install count will not be applied to your charity bundles/initiatives.

Kai•9/14/23, 7:28 AM

they are essentially already paddling back hard

Kai•9/14/23, 7:29 AM

I very much doubt that they came up with these beforehand, but are now realizing that devs give out keys all the time to build a community

Kai•9/14/23, 7:30 AM

Re-install charges - we are not going to charge a fee for re-installs.

this one is also suuuuper confusing? So it's just a fixed royalty per copy?
I mean > 90% of people that buy the game outright (no bundles, trials) will install it, no?

Kai•9/14/23, 7:30 AM

Would it not have been pretty accepted if they would just add a "pls pay us $0.20 per copy sold"?

Kai•9/14/23, 7:30 AM

I mean that's still an ass move, but seems pretty ok. Would just have to clarify whether free-to-play is included in this or not

King•9/14/23, 7:42 AM

Lmao how are they even going to differentiate between "charity related installs" and "fradulent installs" and actual legit installs... hell how are they going to differentiate between a new install and a reinstall if they've said it themselves they "do not collect identifiable information, only aggregate information"

King•9/14/23, 7:42 AM

This is 1000% just bullshit they're throwing out there in the desperate hopes that people don't leave so they can do one final push for super revenue before their brand dies

Kai•9/14/23, 7:44 AM

I mean I'm guessing that they are going to do what they are saying, but this 100% was not the plan from the start

Kai•9/14/23, 7:44 AM

Re-install charges - we are not going to charge a fee for re-installs.

this is basically reverting to a fixed per-copy-sold royalty

> The new UnsafeAccessor attribute (introduced in and supported by dotnet/runtime#86932, dotnet/runt

Similar Threads

Similar Threads

Similar Threads