Was that to me? I don't remember having wrote that. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:46 AM, JohnC <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > That's something that is working, not well for some corner cases, but > sufficiently enough for most cases. > >> > > Can you tell an example of a case that fails. I want to reproduce it > and if possible fix it - if indeed its fixable. > > > > On Aug 9, 4:47 pm, Jorge Freitas Branco > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, everything seems to be fine now with the lines! Thanks again! > > > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jorge Freitas Branco < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I'll do that. Attributes now seem to be working. Thanks! > > > > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jb Evain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> On 8/9/09, Jorge Freitas Branco <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > Also, what is the expected behaviour of the SaveAssembly() method if > we > > >> > don't actually change anything after loading the assembly? I've > checked > > >> the > > >> > checksums of my .exe, both after and before calling SaveAssembly() > > >> without > > >> > having actually changed a thing and they're different. Is this > > >> expectable? > > >> > It seems to be messing up with Visual Studio IDE Debugger, as it > points > > >> out > > >> > the wrong exception lines, etc. Maybe I am missnig something? Like > in > > >> this > > >> > attributes thing? > > > > >> Yes it is expected. Cecil has no way to know if you actually modified > > >> the assembly or not, so it will serialize it again. With possible > > >> changes. > > > > >> You can ask Cecil to read/write the debug symbols so the debugger > > >> doesn't get confused. Search the group, it's been covered multiple > > >> times. > > > > >> -- > > >> Jb Evain <[email protected]> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ -- mono-cecil -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
