Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I like this behaviour, but it does trigger a second question. Why doesn't Reflection allow the same "type equivalence"?
Regards, Jeroen > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of the Rotor Shared Source CLI > implementation [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of David Stutz > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 04:11 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] sbyte[] == byte[] > > > Section 1.8.1.2 of Partition 3 talks about the "verification type > system." As Peter points out, for verification, the number of > types can > be drastically reduced. Take a look at this section of the spec for a > fairly rigorous explanation. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Drayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 11:32 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] sbyte[] == byte[] > > > I think this is by design - there's really little difference > between the > signed and unsigned versions of the short data types, except how the > bits are interpreted. Assigning a value >127 to an int8 simply > overflows. See example [1] below. Arrays of type "unsigned int8[]" are > assignment-compatible with arrays of type "int8[]" (see example [2] > below), which supports this theory. > > On a quick troll of the ECMA specs I couldn't find the exact spot that > asserts this, though there are numerous references to unsigned being > merely an alternate form of signed, and interpreted based on modifers > (unsigned) and special opcodes (e.g. *.ovf). > > --Peter > http://www.razorsoft.net/weblog > http://staff.develop.com/peterd > > [1] > assembly extern mscorlib {} > .assembly overflow {} > .method static void main() { > .entrypoint > .locals init (unsigned int8 b, int8 sb) > ldc.i4 128 > stloc b > ldloc b > stloc sb > ldloc sb > box [mscorlib]System.SByte > call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object) > ldloc b > box [mscorlib]System.Byte > call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(object) > ret > } > > [2] > .assembly extern mscorlib {} > .assembly overflow {} > .method static void main() { > .entrypoint > .locals init (unsigned int8[] rgb, int8[] rgsb) > ldc.i4 1 > newarr unsigned int8 > dup > stloc rgsb > stloc rgb > ret > } > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Discussion of the Rotor Shared Source CLI implementation > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Jeroen Frijters > > Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:43 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [DOTNET-ROTOR] sbyte[] == byte[] > > > > > > When I call a method expecting a byte[] with an sbyte[], > the verifier > > doesn't mind. Is this by design or is it a bug? > > > > .assembly extern mscorlib {} > > .assembly test {} > > .module test.exe > > .imagebase 0x00400000 > > .subsystem 0x00000003 > > .file alignment 512 > > .corflags 0x00000001 > > > > .class private auto ansi beforefieldinit Test > > extends [mscorlib]System.Object > > { > > .method public hidebysig static void Main() cil managed > > { > > .entrypoint > > .maxstack 1 > > ldc.i4.1 > > newarr [mscorlib]System.SByte > > call void Test::Func(unsigned int8[]) > > ret > > } > > > > .method public hidebysig static void Func(unsigned int8[] b) cil > > managed > > { > > .maxstack 0 > > ret > > } > > > > .method public hidebysig specialname rtspecialname > > instance void .ctor() cil managed > > { > > .maxstack 1 > > ldarg.0 > > call instance void [mscorlib]System.Object::.ctor() > > ret > > } > > } > > > > Regards, > > Jeroen > > >
