This problem has been discussed several times already. Check out this discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/mono-cecil/browse_thread/thread/9826ade54b91e3b2?pli=1 In short: when you Resolve() a TypeReference or MethodReference (or any other reference), you loose all generic arguments. You have to then restore those generic arguments by essentially cloning the MethodReference (in your case), except setting its DeclaringType to the original TypeReference (which still contains the generic arguments). The discussion above contains several extension methods that will make this easier for you, but it's important that you know the concept. 2011/5/22 Jean-Paul Mayer <[email protected]> > > I am working on a problem where I want to replace a method on a class with > a new method. > > I want to transform this: > > public class Foo { > public int Bar(){ > return 0; > } > }; > > into this: > > public class Foo { > public int _Call_Bar(string a, string b){ > return 0; > } > > public int Bar(string a, string b){ > try { > //do some preprocessing > return _Call_Bar(a, b); > } finally { > //post processing > } > } > } > > I have it mostly working. However, when Foo has a generic parameter (IE, > public class Foo<T>) then the generated IL looks to be incorrect. > > I end up with a call to > > L_000d: call instance int32 Demo.Foo`1::_Call_Bar(!T, !T) > > However, when I try to use this new type in an assembly it fails with a > type load exception (PEVerify says the assembly is verified). > > I tried to look at the compiler generated IL as if I had do the > transformation manually, and it ends up with a slightly different call > > > L_000d: call instance int32 Demo.Foo`1<!T>::_Call_Bar(!T, !T) > > > It looks like the call doesn't know anything about the generic type of Foo? > > How can I say that the call to _Call_Bar is for type Foo<T>? > > Thanks, > > JP > > -- > -- > mono-cecil -- -- mono-cecil
