Comments
Sort by recent activity
I noticed that the following discussion was initiated by a *similar* error to yours: http://www.developmentnow.com/g/21_2003 ... l-type.htm
The solution was a little bit of refactoring to make the size of the array passed explicit, I think.
Maybe it helps as a workaround.
I'll continue to research this as it is rather interesting! [image] / comments
I noticed that the following discussion was initiated by a *similar* error to yours:http://www.developmentnow.com/g/21_2003 ... l-type.htm
The solution was a little bit of refactoring to make the s...
The IL that smartassembly produces will differ slightly from the original (even with no features on(!)). It will use the long form of instructions whereas yours will use the short form (e.g. brtrue not brtrue.s). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIL_instructions
I've a feeling this is *too* interesting lolz / comments
The IL that smartassembly produces will differ slightly from the original (even with no features on(!)). It will use the long form of instructions whereas yours will use the short form (e.g. brtrue...
If you used a trial version- you won't be able to run the protected assemblies on your client's machine without installing smartassembly there too.
What happens on your own machine- does it work? / comments
If you used a trial version- you won't be able to run the protected assemblies on your client's machine without installing smartassembly there too.
What happens on your own machine- does it work?
Ah! Well done eric-914- this could well be the issue. Smartassembly has no effect on the .config file - which means it won't copy it over for you either so this could be the exact problem. / comments
Ah! Well done eric-914- this could well be the issue. Smartassembly has no effect on the .config file - which means it won't copy it over for you either so this could be the exact problem.
I tried to reproduce but had no luck in forcing any kind of error.
This is not a known error so please treat this like a undifferentiated bug in code and can you track down where in the code it actually behaves differently to non-protected code? For example, it looks like the path string is not initialized so if we can track down why we should be closer to diagnosis.
Sorry I cannot be more specific. / comments
I tried to reproduce but had no luck in forcing any kind of error.
This is not a known error so please treat this like a undifferentiated bug in code and can you track down where in the code it act...
Hello. I'm old but I know a thing or two about Smartassembly [image]
I'm a bit confused about what exactly led up to those errors you got as i don't recognise them as Smartassembly errors- they even look more like compiler errors.
Can I just check- your application compiles and runs perfectly well unobfuscated?
When you build a smartassembly project- with no features selected at all- you get the errors you mention? / comments
Hello. I'm old but I know a thing or two about Smartassembly
I'm a bit confused about what exactly led up to those errors you got as i don't recognise them as Smartassembly errors- they even look ...
This is not a well known issue- we'll have to look into it. As a quick check can you try running ANTS explicitly as administrator (right click on the ANTS Profiler UI.exe)?
Secondly, if this process is .Net 4.0 or higher, try using the 'Attach-to-process' profiling option. / comments
This is not a well known issue- we'll have to look into it. As a quick check can you try running ANTS explicitly as administrator (right click on the ANTS Profiler UI.exe)?
Secondly, if this proces...
Yes, sorry this is a known issue. Can you try with the command line version please:
>"C:\Program Files\Red Gate\SmartAssembly 6\smartassembly.com"
"full_path_to\sa_build_file.saproj" / comments
Yes, sorry this is a known issue. Can you try with the command line version please:
>"C:\Program Files\Red Gate\SmartAssembly 6\smartassembly.com"
"full_path_to\sa_build_file.saproj"
:-) / comments
:-)
I don't recall this particular error or even any general interference with tcp/ip however, it is known that the instrumentation technique (line/method level) of profiling is much more "interfering" than sampling method when it comes to the running of IL since it dynamically injects IL.
Does it help by locking out this part of the code to mulitple threads (if only to test)? / comments
I don't recall this particular error or even any general interference with tcp/ip however, it is known that the instrumentation technique (line/method level) of profiling is much more "interfering"...