As far as I know, Mono.Cecil has support for reading debug files of MS.NET (pdb) and mono (mdb), but not manipulating them yet I think.
It also supports .NET 2.0, including generics (I cannot find a definitive statement on that, so it may still be missing a thing or two). Blog of Jb Evain http://evain.net/blog/articles/category/cecil 10,000 feets in the air ... http://www.go-mono.com/meeting06/MonoMeeting-Cecil.pdf Sébastien On 2/26/07, gregory young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is another similar tool available from MSR absil.I have not played with cecil yet ut do you know if it supports symbols? The big problem with most link time weaves in .NET is that debugging is tough for the mangled code. On 2/26/07, Sébastien Lorion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the Cecil project from Mono would be useful for AOP and most > dynamic stuff. > > http://www.mono-project.com/Cecil > > "Cecil is a library written by Jb Evain to generate and inspect > programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL format. > > In simple English, with Cecil, you can load existing managed > assemblies, browse all the contained types, modify them on the fly and > save back to the disk the modified assembly. > > Today it is used by the Mono Debugger by the bug-finding and > compliance checking tool Gendarme as well as DB4O." > > Sébastien > > On 2/26/07, Krebs Kristofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't the main reason for making methods non-virtual by default supposed > > to prevent unanticipated overrides? When authoring a class that others > > are supposed to derive from you have to be strategic about which methods > > are to be overridable or else you can get versioning and other problems. > > Especially if it is black-boxed. In my experience virtual methods should > > basically be empty to avoid the problem with "should/must I call the > > base implementation or not, do I call it before or after my code etc". > > > > // Kristofer > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma > > Sent: den 26 februari 2007 09:45 > > To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Virtual methods in .NET - was > > Implementing an Interface - C# vs. VB.NET > > > > > As I said the profiling API is not an optimal way of doing things (in > > > particulaer because there is no good way of updating symbols on the > > > fly). Doing a byte coe weave (link time) one can quite easily update > > > symbols for ven code. > > > > Ok, I then misinterpreted your post, I thought you prefered the > > profiler api to do things. > > > > > My statement that it offers more hope is contingent upon a mechanism > > > to update symbols, ifthis existed it would really offer the best > > > ofboth worlds. > > > > fully agreed. > > > > About SSCLI modified tools: these can be helpful, but it should > > be > > doable with standard MS shipped .NET code/compilers, as most > > organisations > > won't trust a '3rd party compiler' I think. > > > > FB > > > > =================================== > > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com > > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at > > http://discuss.develop.com > > > > =================================== > > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com > > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com > > > > > -- > Sébastien > www.sebastienlorion.com > -- Studying for the Turing test =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
-- Sébastien www.sebastienlorion.com
