Keith wrote: > It's not something Cecil should worry about handling in > a valid way, because there IS no valid way to handle it. No self- > respecting compiler would produce such code. > I agree with this. Cecil cannot be able to round-trip all kinds of invalid assemblies that obfuscators could produce. Obfuscator writers are just too clever coming up with invalid assemblies that MS happens to accept.
I think it's sufficient if Cecil is able to read those assemblies - then one could write a clean-up step (e.g. dead code removal) to fix the invalid assembly before saving it. Daniel Grunwald
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
