On 09/30/02 Mark Crichton wrote: > > Testing pinvoke2.exe... failed 34304 (134) signal (0). > > Testing pinvoke3.exe... failed 34304 (134) signal (0). > > Testing pinvoke4.exe... failed 34304 (134) signal (0). > > You're catching a SIGTRAP. For pinvoke2, I'm getting an error there > since I cannot handle MONO_TYPE_VALUETYPE where its size != 4. This is > where PPC does some memcpy trickery. I don't know if this would work > on Sparc or S/390. It might.
A MONO_TYPE_VALUETYPE is a structure: when you need to copy it, you need to use memcpy (it's optimized with a register load/store if the size is 4 bytes). > pinvoke3 and 4 fail for me with error 255. I've been told that is > somewhat normal, but I don't know why. Lupus, can you explain that one > to me? It's not normal:-) A 0 result would be normal. It's probably getting a signal (segfault?) and mint has a bug that will make it quit with 255 error message instead of printing the backtrace. > > Testing pinvoke8.exe... failed 34304 (134) signal (0). > > For me, I put an assert, since I cannot handle a value type as a return > value from a delegate. No clue on how I'll fix that one. See above, use memcpy. The other errors I explained already in another mail. lupus -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] debian/rules [EMAIL PROTECTED] Monkeys do it better _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
