[Mono-list] Questions mostly about IL asembler
Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:18:10 +1000
On 02-Aug-2001, Miguel de Icaza <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 4) I take it from other posts that Portable.net's ilasm
> > solution is not appropriate for Mono? Why is that, or have I
> > misunderstood?
> In reality, Mono does not even need an assembler to create executables
> because we use System.Reflection.Emit (btw, last night I got the first
> "image" built, with only empty interfaces on it).
> It is a low priority item, but it will be useful for people who:
> * Write IL source code.
> * GUI front-ends that might want to integrate compilation of
> both .cs, and .il
> * Complete the SDK.
You didn't answer the question.
The question was not "does the Mono project need an implementation of
ILASM", it was (paraphrasing) "Why is Portable.net's ILASM implementation
not appropriate for Mono?".
An implementation of ILASM would be useful for interoperating with
compilers that generate IL assembly language, rather than PE files.
The Mercury compiler is one example. I might be biased, but I think
this use is far more important than supporting hand-written IL.
Fergus Henderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> | "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.