Re: [Mono-dev] Patches for mono-winforms

2012-07-23 Thread Stifu
Weird. I just tried building WinForms master on Linux, and I get the same result I get on Windows. Not sure what's wrong. But the tests still pass, it's just the displayed controls that are wrong. Steven Boswell II wrote No idea...enclosed is the window generated on my system by the test

Re: [Mono-dev] Initialization of array of enum - trying to not use RuntimeInternals.InitializeArray

2012-07-23 Thread Marek Safar
Hello John, There is a known bug in the Microsoft CLR on the x86_64 platform with regards to initializing an array whose members are enum values (http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/635365/runtimehelpers-initializearray-fails-on-64b-framework). It appears that the

Re: [Mono-dev] Initialization of array of enum - trying to not use RuntimeInternals.InitializeArray

2012-07-23 Thread Kornél Pál
On 7/23/2012 9:53 AM, Marek Safar wrote: Expanding the initialization is the easiest option how to workaround this .net bug. Because the scope of the bug is quite limited and easy to workaround I don't think it's work adding special handling for it. Microsoft already fixed the issue but I am not

Re: [Mono-dev] ConcurrentStack with value type in 2.10

2012-07-23 Thread Rodrigo Kumpera
Hi Yuriy, With how many cores and on what CPU did managed to reproduce this? I'm running this on my 4 cores nehalem mac without any luck. I'll diff ConcurrentStack between 2.8 and 2.10 to see what could be. On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Yuriy Solodkyy yu...@couldbedone.comwrote: Hi, It

Re: [Mono-dev] ConcurrentStack with value type in 2.10

2012-07-23 Thread Alan
I cannot reproduce the problem either. What exact version of 2.10 did you test against? It's possible the bug has already been fixed in a newer release of the 2.10 series. Alan On 23 July 2012 13:32, Rodrigo Kumpera kump...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Yuriy, With how many cores and on what CPU did

Re: [Mono-dev] ConcurrentStack with value type in 2.10

2012-07-23 Thread Konrad Kruczyński
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 13:45 +0100, Alan wrote: I cannot reproduce the problem either. What exact version of 2.10 did you test against? It's possible the bug has already been fixed in a newer release of the 2.10 series. I could reproduce it on 32-bit machine, only with sgen. -- Regards,