You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Provide offset to placeholder in apphost pack #3829
Today, the SDK does a search and replace in the apphost, to find the placeholder. However, the offset to the placeholder is fixed for any given apphost pack. It would be cleaner if this offset could be determined when the apphost template is built and described in a simple sidecar file.
The code that does the search fails on some filesystems today, due to MAP_SHARED not being implemented. We could implement the search a different way, but risk regressing perf for an operation that needn't be done on every end-user's build, and can be done once in our build.
Due to lack of recent activity, this issue has been marked as a candidate for backlog cleanup. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 14 more days. Any new comment (by anyone, not necessarily the author) will undo this process.
This issue will now be closed since it had been marked no-recent-activity but received no further activity in the past 14 days. It is still possible to reopen or comment on the issue, but please note that the issue will be locked if it remains inactive for another 30 days.
Activity
nguerrera commentedon Nov 4, 2019
The idea of providing the offset was raised in the initial PR that implemented search and replace: dotnet/sdk#978 (comment)
We were missing the additional data point that the memory mapped code would fail on some filesystems, though.
dotnet-policy-service commentedon Feb 9, 2026
Due to lack of recent activity, this issue has been marked as a candidate for backlog cleanup. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 14 more days. Any new comment (by anyone, not necessarily the author) will undo this process.
This process is part of our issue cleanup automation.
dotnet-policy-service commentedon Feb 23, 2026
This issue will now be closed since it had been marked
no-recent-activitybut received no further activity in the past 14 days. It is still possible to reopen or comment on the issue, but please note that the issue will be locked if it remains inactive for another 30 days.