Giuseppe Greco wrote:
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 14:38, Ian MacLean wrote:no thats fine - but maybe it shouldn't be called rebuild since its not building its disassembling. Or am i just being pedantic ?
Giuseppe Greco wrote:
I'm assuming the rebuild flag was copied over from ilasm.cs and doesn't need to be there ?Hi all,
Attached to this email you'll find the implementation of the <ildasm> task. This is just a proposal. Comments are welcome!
No, look at the Ildasm::NeedsDisassebling() method: I check whether the source PE file has been modified after the output file was generated...
If you want, I can just remove it... but why should we
generate the IL output again if the source PE has not
been modified?
I think so. Take a look at DelaySignTask.cs to see an example of running the wrapped executable once for each source file.I wonder if have a fileset for sources would be useful. With a fileset you'd get one output file for each assembly specified just changing the name from <>.dll/exe to <>.il .You'd have to spawn the ildasm executable multiple times but that shouldn't be a problem.
No, that wouldn't be a problem at all... should I implement it?
Thats ok. If you're going to implement the above feature I'll wait till thats done.Question: I've refined the comments in IlasmTask.cs... should I resent it to you?
Ian
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
nant-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
