Hi Kamil,
"Kamil Skalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed a few refactorings of generics support in mono recently.
> Unfortunately there appeared some regressions.
>
> First one comes from patch
> http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-patches/2006-February/070865.html
>
> It causes following assertion when bootstraping Nemerle compiler:
>
> COMPILE [stage1] Nemerle.Compiler.dll
>
> ** ERROR **: file icall.c: line 1891
> (ves_icall_MonoType_GetGenericArguments): assertion failed: ((t->type
> != MONO_TYPE_VAR && t->type != MONO_TYPE_MVAR) ||
> t->data.generic_param->owner)
>
> (this problems seems present also in current svn version)
>
> Later it got even worse, since with current svn, mono states there is
> some invalid IL in Nemerle.Compiler. Though from what I can see this
> might be related to Paolo's changes in IL verification.
>
> Here is the tarball to reproduce the problems:
>
> http://nemerle.org/download/snapshots/nemerle-0.9.2.99.6127.tar.gz
>
> Hm, probably I should open a bug for this, as IL and generics problems
> are probably not related. What is your opinion?
I agree. They're probably not related. However, I couldn't even
configure the nemerle tree since it complains about invalid IL in the
bootstrap compiler.
The IL looks like:
IL_04bd: call !!0 class [Nemerle]Nemerle.Core.Option::UnSome,class Nemerle.Compiler.TyVar>> (class
[Nemerle]Nemerle.Core.option`1)
IL_04c2: ldfld !0 valuetype [Nemerle]Nemerle.Builtins.Tuple`2,class
Nemerle.Compiler.TyVar>::field0
The 'call' puts a valuetype on the stack, which mono's il-verifier for
'ldfld' doesn't like. The ECMA 335 April 2005 draft says that it should
be allowed -- maybe this is a change from the older ECMA standard?
So, yes, you should file a bug :-)
- Hari
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
