It is a bug in mono indeed. I made a self-contained test and it worked
perfectly. Then I thought that it may be due to the fact Banshee loads
plugins/media engines dynamically (it is a xine backend for Banshee
what I am doing) and reproduced the way of loading the assembly and
executing the code,
I forgot to mention that when loaded in MDB the code doesn't segfault
(the banshee media engine (plugin) that is). Very odd.
On 7/12/06, Ivan N. Zlatev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a bug in mono indeed. I made a self-contained test and it worked
perfectly. Then I thought that it may be due to
Hi!
We downloaded mono 1.1.16 for Windows and tried to run simple SWF
application with DataGrid.
We connected to firebird server using Firebird .NET Provider and filled
datagrid using data from FB Database.
But when we tried do add new record (set focus on last row of the grid
as showed
Hi
We have just hired a summer placement to start the process
of transitioning our application to Mono. Were using SUSE 10.1.
We have successfully compiled a basic hello world
app and run it but when we add a reference to System.Data into the application,
we get the compilation error
Hi,
Strings are allocated with an extra character. I think this is added to have
a NULL at the end anyway. But when the allocated memory is not zero-filled
by the GC, only the last character of the string is zeroed that can be and
most likely will be overwritten.
Please review and approve
Hi,
This modification seems to be wrong.
But in this case what is the extra character for?
Kornél
- Original Message -
From: Kornél Pál [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: [PATCH] NULL terminate new strings beyond the
Sorry... I was stupid.:) The current code is already zeroing the extra
character and I just shifted it beyond the allocated memory.
Kornél
- Original Message -
From: Kornél Pál [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:59 PM
Subject: Re:
Hello,
It seems that my whole Edit and Continue effort boils down just to one
thing: Being able to recompile as quickly as possible.
The idea is that gmcs would not be used as a command line tool but as a
library. After compilation it would keep all usefully data in memory so
it could use
We plan on documenting our experience with how we get on (for example, where
we got caught out) - our intention being to return this to the mono project
so others can come up to speed more quickly. This might be the basis for a
new/improved getting started.
Mike
-Original Message-
From:
Attached a modified version. Using a function instead of (-1) is a good idea
not because g_assert_not_reached () can be used but because (-1) will not be
monopolized to string constructors (altought it's very unlikely to need any
other kind of redirection).
And I added two more g_asserts to
Lexing and parsing normally are very fast and depend only on the size
of the code being parsed. Semantic analysis is normally the most time
consuming step as loading referenced assemblies and sifting around the
huge metadata to resolve symbols and types is really the meat of the
compiler, also,
Thank you,
So semantic analysis is the part that takes vast majority of the time
and the problem is that gmcs can not easily invalidate previously added
metadata. Right?
What if we add the constraint that only the bodies of methods can
change? The metadata of the new code would be determined
Hi,
This looks ok to check-in, except the Console.WriteLine in CreateString ().
Zoltan
On 7/12/06, Kornél Pál [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached a modified version. Using a function instead of (-1) is a good idea
not because g_assert_not_reached () can be used but because
Hello,
Please reeview attached patches that will fix BulletedList
control and implement Enabled property of ListItem that is new in 2.0
Vladimir
BulletedList.cs.patch
Description: BulletedList.cs.patch
ListItemCollection.cs.patch
Description: ListItemCollection.cs.patch
ListItem.cs.patch
inline
On 7/12/06, David Srbecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you,
So semantic analysis is the part that takes vast majority of the time
and the problem is that gmcs can not easily invalidate previously added
metadata. Right?
That is my bird's view understanding, but it surely is a very
Addition of new members should not a problem since it does not involve
invalidation of metadata. Deletion must be forbidden. This could lead to
simple form of updating: changed source files are send to the complier
which will compile them and merge them into the exiting tree overriding
any
Hi,
CreateString methods are not yet complete. The attached CreateString methods
were forged for testing only.
Encoding.GetString() methods are currently using new String (char []) so the
performance gain were probably insignificant and Latin1Encoding.GetString ()
methods currently use new
At 11:55 AM 12/07/2006 -0300, Rafael Teixeira wrote:
What if we add the constraint that only the bodies of methods can
change? The metadata of the new code would be determined on the first
run and then it would never change and thus it would not need to be
invalidated. Also the preciously done
Hey,
Jonathan Gilbert wrote:
One other possibility which should not be discounted out-of-hand, I think,
is the possibility of resurrecting the interpreter and bringing it
up-to-date. Certainly the hardest part of edit-and-continue of a running
Edit-and-continue is best suited to
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:14 +0200, David Srbecky wrote:
So semantic analysis is the part that takes vast majority of the time
and the problem is that gmcs can not easily invalidate previously added
metadata. Right?
What if we add the constraint that only the bodies of methods can
change?
t 06:48 PM 12/07/2006 +0200, Robert Jordan wrote:
Jonathan Gilbert wrote:
One other possibility which should not be discounted out-of-hand, I think,
is the possibility of resurrecting the interpreter and bringing it
up-to-date. Certainly the hardest part of edit-and-continue of a running
Hello,
We should document for those coming from windows and porting to mono
that mcs doesn't automatically add the 20 or so references csc does
and also that MD now starts with a blank (or really minimal) list of
references when creating projects with the default templates.
VS.NET
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all, i have this method:
public static string SendMail(String FromMail, String ToMail,
String MailSubject, String MailBody, String MailFormat)
{
String OutValue = ;
///Exception ex = Server.GetLastError();
MailMessage email =
Hello,
I actually do not know what takes so long on compilation. Can anyone
give me a rough estimate on how long the compiling stages take please?
- lexing, parsing, semantic analysis and such
- emission of code to System.Reflection.Emit
- Saving of the assembly on disk
It is documented on
Hello,
There is also the problem of figuring out which methods changed and
which did not.
However, I really like the idea - but I think it'd be a huge task and
require a lot of work.
Well, the issues discussed here are just the tip of the iceberg.
There are many, many more places where
Hello,
I'm trying to run web service client from embedded environment but I
keep getting this Fatal error in gc, collecting from unknown thread.
error when web service is invoked. I've tried with few different web
service assemblies but they all give me the same message. Does anyone
know
Hello,
We have successfully compiled a basic “hello world” app and run it but
when we add a reference to System.Data into the application, we get
the compilation error that the type or namespace “Data” (or if we try
“Xml”) does not exist in the name “System”.
The Mono C# compiler by default
Hello,
I noticed that alt and control are switched in ConsoleKeyInfo,
patch attached. Ok to commit?
Index: System/TermInfoDriver.cs
===
--- System/TermInfoDriver.cs (revision 62503)
+++ System/TermInfoDriver.cs
2006/7/13, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello, I'm trying to run web service client from embedded environment but I keep getting this Fatal error in gc, collecting from unknown thread. error when web service is invoked. I've tried with few different web
service assemblies but they all give
Jonathan Gilbert wrote:
I don't see any problem with removing methods -- it would just require an
extra pass over all of the presently-loaded IL to ensure that no code calls
the method being removed. If it's easy to walk the heap and find delegates,
that would also be a necessary test,
I think
Martin Baulig wrote:
So if you parse the same method a second time, the types previously
referenced by that method are still in the cache and thus your
metadata could grow a lot in size if you do that several times.
I do not think that the new method will add that many entries to make
this
Hello,
How can I configure Web.config and an ASPX file to turn the trace
on? I wish to see the data in the respond screen.
Thanks,
Marco Castro
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
Hey,
Jonathan Gilbert wrote:
I also happen to think that it's a little bit arrogant to refuse to
implement a feature on the basis that some people would use it in a pattern
you disapprove of. It would be a little bit like refusing to implement
intellisense on the grounds that people only use
Hey,
Marco Aurelio Castro wrote:
Hello,
How can I configure Web.config and an ASPX file to turn the trace
on? I wish to see the data in the respond screen.
configuration
system.web
trace
enabled=false
Hello,
If someone wants to make this their thesis subject, that is fine with
me, but the amount of changes are too large in too many areas. I do not
even want to bother enumerating them.
Could you please at least state a few to convince me that this is not
feasible?
I did not say it
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:14 +0200, David Srbecky wrote:
So semantic analysis is the part that takes vast majority of the time
and the problem is that gmcs can not easily invalidate previously added
metadata. Right?
Hello,
What if we add the constraint that only the bodies of methods can
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:59 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
There is also the problem of figuring out which methods changed and
which did not.
However, I really like the idea - but I think it'd be a huge task and
require a lot of work.
Hello,
Well, the issues discussed here are just
37 matches
Mail list logo
