Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merging Mono.Cecil changes back to trunk #79

Open
xen2 opened this issue Feb 20, 2015 · 3 comments
Open

Merging Mono.Cecil changes back to trunk #79

xen2 opened this issue Feb 20, 2015 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@xen2
Copy link
Contributor

xen2 commented Feb 20, 2015

Since I use both ILRepack and latest Cecil as assemblies, it would make things much easier if the cecil changes are merged upstream (we manually merge multiple branches and fixes that are not part of trunk already).

I wouldn't mind helping doing so, but first I was interested to know if that seems feasible and if the changes you did make sense as part of Cecil trunk?

@gluck
Copy link
Owner

gluck commented May 4, 2015

It's very much feasible.
Now whether these changes make sense as part of Cecil trunk is more of a question for @jbevain.
The changes aren't much, basically:

  • Win32 resource reader/writer (used in ILRepack to support aspnet merge, which uses Win32 resources)
  • some memory/perf improvements that may only make sense in a repack scenario
  • since a couple of days a trivial fix on generic params import

@jbevain
Copy link

jbevain commented May 4, 2015

Hey guys, I'm very much interested in limiting the number of forks which all have some fixes. I'm currently working with Mono (almost done) and ILSpy (done) to integrate patches upstream.

@KirillOsenkov
Copy link
Collaborator

We have updated to the very latest Cecil and minimized the changes we need in Cecil to this branch:
jbevain/cecil@master...KirillOsenkov:cecil:ilrepack

Most of the diff is support for Win32 resources

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants