Re: [DotGNU]Testing of ILASM:

[Fergus Henderson]

On 02-Jan-2003, James Michael DuPont <address@hidden> wrote:
> --- Rhys Weatherley <address@hidden> wrote:
> > As stated in the FAQ, round-tripping isn't really a goal of pnet.  We
> > always 
> > work from the assumption of source code availability.  Being able to 
> > disassemble an unknown binary, modify it, and then feed it back into
> > the assembler, is unnecessary if you have the source available to 
> > modify  directly.
> 
> Well if you want to link different code from different languages then
> it is important, also if I write code with a different .net language,
> lets say mecury for example. 

Well, yes and no.  If you don't mind the code being in different DLLs,
you should be able to mix different languages without needing round-tripping.
But if you want to produce a single executable, then yes, that is where
round-tripping comes in.  In particular, the closest thing MS has to a
linker is running ildasm on several files, concatenating the output,
and then running ilasm.  Obviously this only works if round-tripping is
supported.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <address@hidden>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.