Search Results

Search found 1618 results on 65 pages for 'il bhima'.

Page 2/65 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Subterranean IL: Exception handling 1

    - by Simon Cooper
    Today, I'll be starting a look at the Structured Exception Handling mechanism within the CLR. Exception handling is quite a complicated business, and, as a result, the rules governing exception handling clauses in IL are quite strict; you need to be careful when writing exception clauses in IL. Exception handlers Exception handlers are specified using a .try clause within a method definition. .try <TryStartLabel> to <TryEndLabel> <HandlerType> handler <HandlerStartLabel> to <HandlerEndLabel> As an example, a basic try/catch block would be specified like so: TryBlockStart: // ... leave.s CatchBlockEndTryBlockEnd:CatchBlockStart: // at the start of a catch block, the exception thrown is on the stack callvirt instance string [mscorlib]System.Object::ToString() call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s CatchBlockEnd CatchBlockEnd: // method code continues... .try TryBlockStart to TryBlockEnd catch [mscorlib]System.Exception handler CatchBlockStart to CatchBlockEnd There are four different types of handler that can be specified: catch <TypeToken> This is the standard exception catch clause; you specify the object type that you want to catch (for example, [mscorlib]System.ArgumentException). Any object can be thrown as an exception, although Microsoft recommend that only classes derived from System.Exception are thrown as exceptions. filter <FilterLabel> A filter block allows you to provide custom logic to determine if a handler block should be run. This functionality is exposed in VB, but not in C#. finally A finally block executes when the try block exits, regardless of whether an exception was thrown or not. fault This is similar to a finally block, but a fault block executes only if an exception was thrown. This is not exposed in VB or C#. You can specify multiple catch or filter handling blocks in each .try, but fault and finally handlers must have their own .try clause. We'll look into why this is in later posts. Scoped exception handlers The .try syntax is quite tricky to use; it requires multiple labels, and you've got to be careful to keep separate the different exception handling sections. However, starting from .NET 2, IL allows you to use scope blocks to specify exception handlers instead. Using this syntax, the example above can be written like so: .try { // ... leave.s EndSEH}catch [mscorlib]System.Exception { callvirt instance string [mscorlib]System.Object::ToString() call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s EndSEH}EndSEH:// method code continues... As you can see, this is much easier to write (and read!) than a stand-alone .try clause. Next time, I'll be looking at some of the restrictions imposed by SEH on control flow, and how the C# compiler generated exception handling clauses.

    Read the article

  • HP va-t-il s'attaquer à Microsoft ? Le constructeur va se lancer dans le Cloud Computing où il pourrait concurrencer Windows Azure

    HP va-t-il s'attaquer à Microsoft ? Le constructeur va se lancer dans le Cloud Computing où il pourrait concurrencer Windows Azure Le PDG change, la stratégie aussi. Au temps de Mark Hurd, l'alliance entre le constructeur HP et le fournisseur d'OS Microsoft était claire. Les deux sociétés complétaient leurs offres respectives avec les atouts de l'autre. Le hardware de HP et la plateforme Azure de Microsoft formaient des appliances complètes, clef-en-main, à destination des Cloud privés et des data-centers des entreprises. C'est encore théoriquement le cas aujourd'hui. Mais depu...

    Read the article

  • Le Mac App Store est ouvert depuis ce matin, mais il inquiète déjà certains développeurs

    Le Mac App Store est ouvert depuis ce matin, mais il inquiète déjà certains développeurs Mise à jour du 06.01.2011 par Katleen Comme nous vous l'avions annoncé il y a deux semaines, le Mac App Store est lancé ce jour. Un service de plus dans la panoplie d'Apple, qui ne cesse de s'étendre. Son objectif ? Offrir plus de visibilité à Mac OS X, l'OS de la firme. La boutique sera en effet disponible directement depuis celui-ci. Seulement, ce concept ne fait pas la joie de tout le monde : les développeurs commencent à grincer des dents. En effet, à cause de la prolifération des applications, qui sont de plus en plus nombreuses, un phénomène de concurrence s'est mis en place, e...

    Read the article

  • A quel point l'Internet est-il étendu ? Il compterait actuellement 255 millions de sites et 1.97 milliards d'utilisateurs

    A quel point l'Internet est-il étendu ? Il compterait actuellement 255 millions de sites et 1.97 milliards d'utilisateurs La compagnie technologique Pingdom s'est penchée sur la taille de l'Internet, et sur les évènements qui l'ont atteint en 2010. A l'aide de statistiques révélées publiquement par des entreprises spécialisées, ainsi qu'en s'appuyant sur des recherches qu'elle a réalisée elle-même, Pingdom vient de publier des chiffres impressionnant sur le Web. De quoi avoir le vertige. Ainsi, 107 trilliards d'e-mails ont été échangés l'année dernière. Actuellement, la Toile compterait 255 millions de sites Internet pour 88.8 millions de domaines en ".com". 1.97 milliard d'êtres humains seraient des intern...

    Read the article

  • PostSharp, Obfuscation, and IL

    - by Simon Cooper
    Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a relatively new programming paradigm. Originating at Xerox PARC in 1994, the paradigm was first made available for general-purpose development as an extension to Java in 2001. From there, it has quickly been adapted for use in all the common languages used today. In the .NET world, one of the primary AOP toolkits is PostSharp. Attributes and AOP Normally, attributes in .NET are entirely a metadata construct. Apart from a few special attributes in the .NET framework, they have no effect whatsoever on how a class or method executes within the CLR. Only by using reflection at runtime can you access any attributes declared on a type or type member. PostSharp changes this. By declaring a custom attribute that derives from PostSharp.Aspects.Aspect, applying it to types and type members, and running the resulting assembly through the PostSharp postprocessor, you can essentially declare 'clever' attributes that change the behaviour of whatever the aspect has been applied to at runtime. A simple example of this is logging. By declaring a TraceAttribute that derives from OnMethodBoundaryAspect, you can automatically log when a method has been executed: public class TraceAttribute : PostSharp.Aspects.OnMethodBoundaryAspect { public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Entering {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } public override void OnExit(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Leaving {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } } [Trace] public void MethodToLog() { ... } Now, whenever MethodToLog is executed, the aspect will automatically log entry and exit, without having to add the logging code to MethodToLog itself. PostSharp Performance Now this does introduce a performance overhead - as you can see, the aspect allows access to the MethodBase of the method the aspect has been applied to. If you were limited to C#, you would be forced to retrieve each MethodBase instance using Type.GetMethod(), matching on the method name and signature. This is slow. Fortunately, PostSharp is not limited to C#. It can use any instruction available in IL. And in IL, you can do some very neat things. Ldtoken C# allows you to get the Type object corresponding to a specific type name using the typeof operator: Type t = typeof(Random); The C# compiler compiles this operator to the following IL: ldtoken [mscorlib]System.Random call class [mscorlib]System.Type [mscorlib]System.Type::GetTypeFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeTypeHandle) The ldtoken instruction obtains a special handle to a type called a RuntimeTypeHandle, and from that, the Type object can be obtained using GetTypeFromHandle. These are both relatively fast operations - no string lookup is required, only direct assembly and CLR constructs are used. However, a little-known feature is that ldtoken is not just limited to types; it can also get information on methods and fields, encapsulated in a RuntimeMethodHandle or RuntimeFieldHandle: // get a MethodBase for String.EndsWith(string) ldtoken method instance bool [mscorlib]System.String::EndsWith(string) call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase::GetMethodFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeMethodHandle) // get a FieldInfo for the String.Empty field ldtoken field string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo::GetFieldFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeFieldHandle) These usages of ldtoken aren't usable from C# or VB, and aren't likely to be added anytime soon (Eric Lippert's done a blog post on the possibility of adding infoof, methodof or fieldof operators to C#). However, PostSharp deals directly with IL, and so can use ldtoken to get MethodBase objects quickly and cheaply, without having to resort to string lookups. The kicker However, there are problems. Because ldtoken for methods or fields isn't accessible from C# or VB, it hasn't been as well-tested as ldtoken for types. This has resulted in various obscure bugs in most versions of the CLR when dealing with ldtoken and methods, and specifically, generic methods and methods of generic types. This means that PostSharp was behaving incorrectly, or just plain crashing, when aspects were applied to methods that were generic in some way. So, PostSharp has to work around this. Without using the metadata tokens directly, the only way to get the MethodBase of generic methods is to use reflection: Type.GetMethod(), passing in the method name as a string along with information on the signature. Now, this works fine. It's slower than using ldtoken directly, but it works, and this only has to be done for generic methods. Unfortunately, this poses problems when the assembly is obfuscated. PostSharp and Obfuscation When using ldtoken, obfuscators don't affect how PostSharp operates. Because the ldtoken instruction directly references the type, method or field within the assembly, it is unaffected if the name of the object is changed by an obfuscator. However, the indirect loading used for generic methods was breaking, because that uses the name of the method when the assembly is put through the PostSharp postprocessor to lookup the MethodBase at runtime. If the name then changes, PostSharp can't find it anymore, and the assembly breaks. So, PostSharp needs to know about any changes an obfuscator does to an assembly. The way PostSharp does this is by adding another layer of indirection. When PostSharp obfuscation support is enabled, it includes an extra 'name table' resource in the assembly, consisting of a series of method & type names. When PostSharp needs to lookup a method using reflection, instead of encoding the method name directly, it looks up the method name at a fixed offset inside that name table: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(ContainingClass).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: get_Prop1 21: set_Prop1 22: DoFoo 23: GetWibble When the assembly is later processed by an obfuscator, the obfuscator can replace all the method and type names within the name table with their new name. That way, the reflection lookups performed by PostSharp will now use the new names, and everything will work as expected: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(#kGy).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: #kkA 21: #zAb 22: #EF5a 23: #2tg As you can see, this requires direct support by an obfuscator in order to perform these rewrites. Dotfuscator supports it, and now, starting with SmartAssembly 6.6.4, SmartAssembly does too. So, a relatively simple solution to a tricky problem, with some CLR bugs thrown in for good measure. You don't see those every day!

    Read the article

  • PostSharp, Obfuscation, and IL

    - by Simon Cooper
    Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a relatively new programming paradigm. Originating at Xerox PARC in 1994, the paradigm was first made available for general-purpose development as an extension to Java in 2001. From there, it has quickly been adapted for use in all the common languages used today. In the .NET world, one of the primary AOP toolkits is PostSharp. Attributes and AOP Normally, attributes in .NET are entirely a metadata construct. Apart from a few special attributes in the .NET framework, they have no effect whatsoever on how a class or method executes within the CLR. Only by using reflection at runtime can you access any attributes declared on a type or type member. PostSharp changes this. By declaring a custom attribute that derives from PostSharp.Aspects.Aspect, applying it to types and type members, and running the resulting assembly through the PostSharp postprocessor, you can essentially declare 'clever' attributes that change the behaviour of whatever the aspect has been applied to at runtime. A simple example of this is logging. By declaring a TraceAttribute that derives from OnMethodBoundaryAspect, you can automatically log when a method has been executed: public class TraceAttribute : PostSharp.Aspects.OnMethodBoundaryAspect { public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Entering {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } public override void OnExit(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Leaving {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } } [Trace] public void MethodToLog() { ... } Now, whenever MethodToLog is executed, the aspect will automatically log entry and exit, without having to add the logging code to MethodToLog itself. PostSharp Performance Now this does introduce a performance overhead - as you can see, the aspect allows access to the MethodBase of the method the aspect has been applied to. If you were limited to C#, you would be forced to retrieve each MethodBase instance using Type.GetMethod(), matching on the method name and signature. This is slow. Fortunately, PostSharp is not limited to C#. It can use any instruction available in IL. And in IL, you can do some very neat things. Ldtoken C# allows you to get the Type object corresponding to a specific type name using the typeof operator: Type t = typeof(Random); The C# compiler compiles this operator to the following IL: ldtoken [mscorlib]System.Random call class [mscorlib]System.Type [mscorlib]System.Type::GetTypeFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeTypeHandle) The ldtoken instruction obtains a special handle to a type called a RuntimeTypeHandle, and from that, the Type object can be obtained using GetTypeFromHandle. These are both relatively fast operations - no string lookup is required, only direct assembly and CLR constructs are used. However, a little-known feature is that ldtoken is not just limited to types; it can also get information on methods and fields, encapsulated in a RuntimeMethodHandle or RuntimeFieldHandle: // get a MethodBase for String.EndsWith(string) ldtoken method instance bool [mscorlib]System.String::EndsWith(string) call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase::GetMethodFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeMethodHandle) // get a FieldInfo for the String.Empty field ldtoken field string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo::GetFieldFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeFieldHandle) These usages of ldtoken aren't usable from C# or VB, and aren't likely to be added anytime soon (Eric Lippert's done a blog post on the possibility of adding infoof, methodof or fieldof operators to C#). However, PostSharp deals directly with IL, and so can use ldtoken to get MethodBase objects quickly and cheaply, without having to resort to string lookups. The kicker However, there are problems. Because ldtoken for methods or fields isn't accessible from C# or VB, it hasn't been as well-tested as ldtoken for types. This has resulted in various obscure bugs in most versions of the CLR when dealing with ldtoken and methods, and specifically, generic methods and methods of generic types. This means that PostSharp was behaving incorrectly, or just plain crashing, when aspects were applied to methods that were generic in some way. So, PostSharp has to work around this. Without using the metadata tokens directly, the only way to get the MethodBase of generic methods is to use reflection: Type.GetMethod(), passing in the method name as a string along with information on the signature. Now, this works fine. It's slower than using ldtoken directly, but it works, and this only has to be done for generic methods. Unfortunately, this poses problems when the assembly is obfuscated. PostSharp and Obfuscation When using ldtoken, obfuscators don't affect how PostSharp operates. Because the ldtoken instruction directly references the type, method or field within the assembly, it is unaffected if the name of the object is changed by an obfuscator. However, the indirect loading used for generic methods was breaking, because that uses the name of the method when the assembly is put through the PostSharp postprocessor to lookup the MethodBase at runtime. If the name then changes, PostSharp can't find it anymore, and the assembly breaks. So, PostSharp needs to know about any changes an obfuscator does to an assembly. The way PostSharp does this is by adding another layer of indirection. When PostSharp obfuscation support is enabled, it includes an extra 'name table' resource in the assembly, consisting of a series of method & type names. When PostSharp needs to lookup a method using reflection, instead of encoding the method name directly, it looks up the method name at a fixed offset inside that name table: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(ContainingClass).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: get_Prop1 21: set_Prop1 22: DoFoo 23: GetWibble When the assembly is later processed by an obfuscator, the obfuscator can replace all the method and type names within the name table with their new name. That way, the reflection lookups performed by PostSharp will now use the new names, and everything will work as expected: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(#kGy).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: #kkA 21: #zAb 22: #EF5a 23: #2tg As you can see, this requires direct support by an obfuscator in order to perform these rewrites. Dotfuscator supports it, and now, starting with SmartAssembly 6.6.4, SmartAssembly does too. So, a relatively simple solution to a tricky problem, with some CLR bugs thrown in for good measure. You don't see those every day!

    Read the article

  • PostSharp, Obfuscation, and IL

    - by simonc
    Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a relatively new programming paradigm. Originating at Xerox PARC in 1994, the paradigm was first made available for general-purpose development as an extension to Java in 2001. From there, it has quickly been adapted for use in all the common languages used today. In the .NET world, one of the primary AOP toolkits is PostSharp. Attributes and AOP Normally, attributes in .NET are entirely a metadata construct. Apart from a few special attributes in the .NET framework, they have no effect whatsoever on how a class or method executes within the CLR. Only by using reflection at runtime can you access any attributes declared on a type or type member. PostSharp changes this. By declaring a custom attribute that derives from PostSharp.Aspects.Aspect, applying it to types and type members, and running the resulting assembly through the PostSharp postprocessor, you can essentially declare 'clever' attributes that change the behaviour of whatever the aspect has been applied to at runtime. A simple example of this is logging. By declaring a TraceAttribute that derives from OnMethodBoundaryAspect, you can automatically log when a method has been executed: public class TraceAttribute : PostSharp.Aspects.OnMethodBoundaryAspect { public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Entering {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } public override void OnExit(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Leaving {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } } [Trace] public void MethodToLog() { ... } Now, whenever MethodToLog is executed, the aspect will automatically log entry and exit, without having to add the logging code to MethodToLog itself. PostSharp Performance Now this does introduce a performance overhead - as you can see, the aspect allows access to the MethodBase of the method the aspect has been applied to. If you were limited to C#, you would be forced to retrieve each MethodBase instance using Type.GetMethod(), matching on the method name and signature. This is slow. Fortunately, PostSharp is not limited to C#. It can use any instruction available in IL. And in IL, you can do some very neat things. Ldtoken C# allows you to get the Type object corresponding to a specific type name using the typeof operator: Type t = typeof(Random); The C# compiler compiles this operator to the following IL: ldtoken [mscorlib]System.Random call class [mscorlib]System.Type [mscorlib]System.Type::GetTypeFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeTypeHandle) The ldtoken instruction obtains a special handle to a type called a RuntimeTypeHandle, and from that, the Type object can be obtained using GetTypeFromHandle. These are both relatively fast operations - no string lookup is required, only direct assembly and CLR constructs are used. However, a little-known feature is that ldtoken is not just limited to types; it can also get information on methods and fields, encapsulated in a RuntimeMethodHandle or RuntimeFieldHandle: // get a MethodBase for String.EndsWith(string) ldtoken method instance bool [mscorlib]System.String::EndsWith(string) call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase::GetMethodFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeMethodHandle) // get a FieldInfo for the String.Empty field ldtoken field string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo::GetFieldFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeFieldHandle) These usages of ldtoken aren't usable from C# or VB, and aren't likely to be added anytime soon (Eric Lippert's done a blog post on the possibility of adding infoof, methodof or fieldof operators to C#). However, PostSharp deals directly with IL, and so can use ldtoken to get MethodBase objects quickly and cheaply, without having to resort to string lookups. The kicker However, there are problems. Because ldtoken for methods or fields isn't accessible from C# or VB, it hasn't been as well-tested as ldtoken for types. This has resulted in various obscure bugs in most versions of the CLR when dealing with ldtoken and methods, and specifically, generic methods and methods of generic types. This means that PostSharp was behaving incorrectly, or just plain crashing, when aspects were applied to methods that were generic in some way. So, PostSharp has to work around this. Without using the metadata tokens directly, the only way to get the MethodBase of generic methods is to use reflection: Type.GetMethod(), passing in the method name as a string along with information on the signature. Now, this works fine. It's slower than using ldtoken directly, but it works, and this only has to be done for generic methods. Unfortunately, this poses problems when the assembly is obfuscated. PostSharp and Obfuscation When using ldtoken, obfuscators don't affect how PostSharp operates. Because the ldtoken instruction directly references the type, method or field within the assembly, it is unaffected if the name of the object is changed by an obfuscator. However, the indirect loading used for generic methods was breaking, because that uses the name of the method when the assembly is put through the PostSharp postprocessor to lookup the MethodBase at runtime. If the name then changes, PostSharp can't find it anymore, and the assembly breaks. So, PostSharp needs to know about any changes an obfuscator does to an assembly. The way PostSharp does this is by adding another layer of indirection. When PostSharp obfuscation support is enabled, it includes an extra 'name table' resource in the assembly, consisting of a series of method & type names. When PostSharp needs to lookup a method using reflection, instead of encoding the method name directly, it looks up the method name at a fixed offset inside that name table: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(ContainingClass).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: get_Prop1 21: set_Prop1 22: DoFoo 23: GetWibble When the assembly is later processed by an obfuscator, the obfuscator can replace all the method and type names within the name table with their new name. That way, the reflection lookups performed by PostSharp will now use the new names, and everything will work as expected: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(#kGy).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: #kkA 21: #zAb 22: #EF5a 23: #2tg As you can see, this requires direct support by an obfuscator in order to perform these rewrites. Dotfuscator supports it, and now, starting with SmartAssembly 6.6.4, SmartAssembly does too. So, a relatively simple solution to a tricky problem, with some CLR bugs thrown in for good measure. You don't see those every day! Cross posted from Simple Talk.

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio & RAD support for coding directly in IL?

    - by jdk
    For the longest time I've been curious to code in Intermediate Language just as an academic endeavour and to gain a better understanding of what's "happening under the hood". Does anybody provide Visual Studio support for *IL in the form of: project templates, IntelliSense integration, and those kind of RAD features? Edits: I don't mean restricted to out of the box support. For example, I can download Visual Studio extensions to support Python, COBOL, etc. Want the same for *IL. There is a stand-alone Intermediate Assembler tool.

    Read the article

  • RIM : « nous ne mettons pas fin au téléchargement d'applications Android », il devient une « fonctionnalité pour développeurs »

    RIM : « nous ne mettons pas fin à la possibilité de télécharger des applications Android » Elle « change de nature » et devient une fonctionnalité dédiée aux développeurs Mise à jour du 12/04/2012 Après le début de tôlé provoqué par l'annonce de la fin de la possibilité de télécharger des applications Android directement depuis Google Play sur la Playbook (la tablette de RIM), le constructeur du BlackBerry a tenu à réagir en apportant quelques précisions. « Il y a eu beaucoup d'articles suite aux tweets que j'ai postés sur le chargement d'applications (NDR : Android) sur la tablette BlackBerry PlayBook. Malheureusement, 140 carac...

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Filter exception handlers

    - by Simon Cooper
    Filter handlers are the second type of exception handler that aren't accessible from C#. Unlike the other handler types, which have defined conditions for when the handlers execute, filter lets you use custom logic to determine whether the handler should be run. However, similar to a catch block, the filter block does not get run if control flow exits the block without throwing an exception. Introducing filter blocks An example of a filter block in IL is the following: .try { // try block } filter { // filter block endfilter }{ // filter handler } or, in v1 syntax, TryStart: // try block TryEnd: FilterStart: // filter block HandlerStart: // filter handler HandlerEnd: .try TryStart to TryEnd filter FilterStart handler HandlerStart to HandlerEnd In the v1 syntax there is no end label specified for the filter block. This is because the filter block must come immediately before the filter handler; the end of the filter block is the start of the filter handler. The filter block indicates to the CLR whether the filter handler should be executed using a boolean value on the stack when the endfilter instruction is run; true/non-zero if it is to be executed, false/zero if it isn't. At the start of the filter block, and the corresponding filter handler, a reference to the exception thrown is pushed onto the stack as a raw object (you have to manually cast to System.Exception). The allowed IL inside a filter block is tightly controlled; you aren't allowed branches outside the block, rethrow instructions, and other exception handling clauses. You can, however, use call and callvirt instructions to call other methods. Filter block logic To demonstrate filter block logic, in this example I'm filtering on whether there's a particular key in the Data dictionary of the thrown exception: .try { // try block } filter { // Filter starts with exception object on stack // C# code: ((Exception)e).Data.Contains("MyExceptionDataKey") // only execute handler if Contains returns true castclass [mscorlib]System.Exception callvirt instance class [mscorlib]System.Collections.IDictionary [mscorlib]System.Exception::get_Data() ldstr "MyExceptionDataKey" callvirt instance bool [mscorlib]System.Collections.IDictionary::Contains(object) endfilter }{ // filter handler // Also starts off with exception object on stack callvirt instance string [mscorlib]System.Object::ToString() call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) } Conclusion Filter exception handlers are another exception handler type that isn't accessible from C#, however, just like fault handlers, the behaviour can be replicated using a normal catch block: try { // try block } catch (Exception e) { if (!FilterLogic(e)) throw; // handler logic } So, it's not that great a loss, but it's still annoying that this functionality isn't directly accessible. Well, every feature starts off with minus 100 points, so it's understandable why something like this didn't make it into the C# compiler ahead of a different feature.

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Exception handler semantics

    - by Simon Cooper
    In my blog posts on fault and filter exception handlers, I said that the same behaviour could be replicated using normal catch blocks. Well, that isn't entirely true... Changing the handler semantics Consider the following: .try { .try { .try { newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor() // IL for: // e.Data.Add("DictKey", true) throw } fault { ldstr "1: Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) endfault } } filter { ldstr "2a: Filter logic" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) // IL for: // (bool)((Exception)e).Data["DictKey"] endfilter }{ ldstr "2b: Filter handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } } catch object { ldstr "3: Catch handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } Return: // rest of method If the filter handler is engaged (true is inserted into the exception dictionary) then the filter handler gets engaged, and the following gets printed to the console: 2a: Filter logic 1: Fault handler 2b: Filter handler and if the filter handler isn't engaged, then the following is printed: 2a:Filter logic 1: Fault handler 3: Catch handler Filter handler execution The filter handler is executed first. Hmm, ok. Well, what happens if we replaced the fault block with the C# equivalent (with the exception dictionary value set to false)? .try { // throw exception } catch object { ldstr "1: Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) rethrow } we get this: 1: Fault handler 2a: Filter logic 3: Catch handler The fault handler is executed first, instead of the filter block. Eh? This change in behaviour is due to the way the CLR searches for exception handlers. When an exception is thrown, the CLR stops execution of the thread, and searches up the stack for an exception handler that can handle the exception and stop it propagating further - catch or filter handlers. It checks the type clause of catch clauses, and executes the code in filter blocks to see if the filter can handle the exception. When the CLR finds a valid handler, it saves the handler's location, then goes back to where the exception was thrown and executes fault and finally blocks between there and the handler location, discarding stack frames in the process, until it reaches the handler. So? By replacing a fault with a catch, we have changed the semantics of when the filter code is executed; by using a rethrow instruction, we've split up the exception handler search into two - one search to find the first catch, then a second when the rethrow instruction is encountered. This is only really obvious when mixing C# exception handlers with fault or filter handlers, so this doesn't affect code written only in C#. However it could cause some subtle and hard-to-debug effects with object initialization and ordering when using and calling code written in a language that can compile fault and filter handlers.

    Read the article

  • IL emit - operation could destabilize runtime when storing then loading

    - by Jakob Botsch Nielsen
    Hey, so I have the following IL: il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0); il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret); Which works fine. It basically returns the argument given. This, however: il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0); il.Emit(OpCodes.Stloc_0); il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldloc_0); il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret); Does not work. It crashes with the exception "Operation could destabilize the runtime.". Now, I know that the purpose of that is useless but I'm trying to reach my goal by small steps. Why does that not work?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio Talk Show #114 is now online - Le responsable de projet est-il mort? (French)

    - by guybarrette
    http://www.visualstudiotalkshow.com Bernard Fedotoff: Le responsable de projet est-il mort? Nous discutons avec Bernard Fedotoff sur comment jumeler la gestion de projet et les méthodes de développement agile. Entre autres, avec les méthodes agiles on se demande où est la place du responsable de projet. Bernard Fedotoff est Microsoft Regional Director depuis 1996 ; il a animé les Devdays et Techdays en Suisse et en France depuis 1997. Il a été fondateur et PDG de PSEngineering depuis 1990, société qu’il a revendue en 2004. En 2005, il a fondé la société Agilcom. Bernard a mené auprès de clients français, suisses, et d'afrique du nord de nombreuses missions en technologie .Net, d'architecture et de coaching d'équipes de dévoppement. Son passé de Pdg et son expertise technologique apportent aux projets qu'il accompagne deux points de vue riches d'expériences et de convictions. Il a aussi accompagné la mise en place de plateaux offshores vers la Tunisie, en implémentant des approches Agile avec Team Foundation Server. Enfin, il est aussi co-auteur de nombreux ateliers des coachs publiés sur le site MSDN de Microsoft France. Bernard est titulaire d’un diplôme d’ingénieur ainsi que d’un troisième cycle universitaire en robotique. Il consacre ses quelques minutes de temps libre à la montagne Télécharger l'émission Si vous désirez un accès direct au fichier audio en format MP3, nous vous invitons à télécharger le fichier en utilisant un des boutons ci-dessous. Si vous désirez utiliser le feed RSS pour télécharger l'émission, nous vous invitons à vous abonnez en utilisant le bouton ci-dessous. Si vous désirez utiliser le répertoire iTunes Podcast pour télécharger l'émission, nous vous encourageons à vous abonnez en utilisant le bouton ci-dessous. var addthis_pub="guybarrette";

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio Talk Show #114 is now online - Le responsable de projet est-il mort? (French)

    - by guybarrette
    http://www.visualstudiotalkshow.com Bernard Fedotoff: Le responsable de projet est-il mort? Nous discutons avec Bernard Fedotoff sur comment jumeler la gestion de projet et les méthodes de développement agile. Entre autres, avec les méthodes agiles on se demande où est la place du responsable de projet. Bernard Fedotoff est Microsoft Regional Director depuis 1996 ; il a animé les Devdays et Techdays en Suisse et en France depuis 1997. Il a été fondateur et PDG de PSEngineering depuis 1990, société qu’il a revendue en 2004. En 2005, il a fondé la société Agilcom. Bernard a mené auprès de clients français, suisses, et d'afrique du nord de nombreuses missions en technologie .Net, d'architecture et de coaching d'équipes de dévoppement. Son passé de Pdg et son expertise technologique apportent aux projets qu'il accompagne deux points de vue riches d'expériences et de convictions. Il a aussi accompagné la mise en place de plateaux offshores vers la Tunisie, en implémentant des approches Agile avec Team Foundation Server. Enfin, il est aussi co-auteur de nombreux ateliers des coachs publiés sur le site MSDN de Microsoft France. Bernard est titulaire d’un diplôme d’ingénieur ainsi que d’un troisième cycle universitaire en robotique. Il consacre ses quelques minutes de temps libre à la montagne Télécharger l'émission Si vous désirez un accès direct au fichier audio en format MP3, nous vous invitons à télécharger le fichier en utilisant un des boutons ci-dessous. Si vous désirez utiliser le feed RSS pour télécharger l'émission, nous vous invitons à vous abonnez en utilisant le bouton ci-dessous. Si vous désirez utiliser le répertoire iTunes Podcast pour télécharger l'émission, nous vous encourageons à vous abonnez en utilisant le bouton ci-dessous. var addthis_pub="guybarrette";

    Read the article

  • Gestire la relazione con il fornitore: strategie, processi, strumenti

    - by antonella.buonagurio(at)oracle.com
    Si é svolto il 3 Marzo un interessante incontro sul tema delle relazioni fra fornitori ed ufficio acquisti. Cesare Businelli , Direttore Generale Italia dell' European Institute of Purchasing Management ha illustrato, in un tempo purtoppo inferiore al necessario, come gestire le relazioni e la collaborazione con i fornitori strategici per creare valore, portando numerosi esempi di successo e stimolando l'uditorio, composto dai responsabili acquisti di piu di 20 aziende. A seguire Lino Campofiorito - Procurement Solutions Sales Consultant di Oracle ha illustrato alcune delle soluzioni informatiche a supporto. Qui potrete trovare le slides. Al termine dell'incontro molte domande per i relatori a conferma dell'interesse del tema.  Oracle Procurement Channel View more presentations from antobng82.

    Read the article

  • Il sera bientôt possible d'éviter la surveillance de Google Analytics, avec un plug-in spécial conçu

    Il sera bientôt possible d'éviter la surveillance de Google Analytics, avec un plug-in spécial conçu par la firme La comparaison entre Google et Big Brother se fait de plus en plus fréquente dans les discussions et, par conséquent, nombre d'internautes se sentent épiés lorsqu'ils surfent. La majorité des sites Internet sont surveillés par l'outil Google Analytics de la firme, qui collecte des informations sur ses visiteurs sans qu'on ne leur demande leur avis ; mais ceci pourrait bientôt changer. Google teste actuellement une solution intégrable aux navigateurs, qui permettrait de désactiver Google Analytics, présentée comme "plug-in permettant à tous les utilisateurs de navigateurs de ne plus être traqués par G...

    Read the article

  • Le Bluetooth 4.0 dans les starting-blocks, plus puissant il rend possible le développement d'applica

    Le Bluetooth 4.0 dans les starting-blocks Il rendrait possible le développement d'applications sportives, médicales et domotiques Le Bluetooth, dans sa version 4, serait prêt à bondir. C'est le message qui vient d'être donné sur le site officiel de la technologie. Le Bluetooth 4 marque en tout cas une réelle évolution. La portée du signal pourra à présent dépasser les 60 mètres (et être modulable). Sa consommation électrique sera plus réduite. Et le Bluetooth inclura à présent la norme radio 802.11 pour le transfert haut débit de fichiers. Ces évolutions, notamment la modularité du signal, permettront d'élargir la gamme de produits qui peuvent être int...

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Generics and array covariance

    - by Simon Cooper
    Arrays in .NET are curious beasts. They are the only built-in collection types in the CLR, and SZ-arrays (single dimension, zero-indexed) have their own commands and IL syntax. One of their stranger properties is they have a kind of built-in covariance long before generic variance was added in .NET 4. However, this causes a subtle but important problem with generics. First of all, we need to briefly recap on array covariance. SZ-array covariance To demonstrate, I'll tweak the classes I introduced in my previous posts: public class IncrementableClass { public int Value; public virtual void Increment(int incrementBy) { Value += incrementBy; } } public class IncrementableClassx2 : IncrementableClass { public override void Increment(int incrementBy) { base.Increment(incrementBy); base.Increment(incrementBy); } } In the CLR, SZ-arrays of reference types are implicitly convertible to arrays of the element's supertypes, all the way up to object (note that this does not apply to value types). That is, an instance of IncrementableClassx2[] can be used wherever a IncrementableClass[] or object[] is required. When an SZ-array could be used in this fashion, a run-time type check is performed when you try to insert an object into the array to make sure you're not trying to insert an instance of IncrementableClass into an IncrementableClassx2[]. This check means that the following code will compile fine but will fail at run-time: IncrementableClass[] array = new IncrementableClassx2[1]; array[0] = new IncrementableClass(); // throws ArrayTypeMismatchException These checks are enforced by the various stelem* and ldelem* il instructions in such a way as to ensure you can't insert a IncrementableClass into a IncrementableClassx2[]. For the rest of this post, however, I'm going to concentrate on the ldelema instruction. ldelema This instruction pops the array index (int32) and array reference (O) off the stack, and pushes a pointer (&) to the corresponding array element. However, unlike the ldelem instruction, the instruction's type argument must match the run-time array type exactly. This is because, once you've got a managed pointer, you can use that pointer to both load and store values in that array element using the ldind* and stind* (load/store indirect) instructions. As the same pointer can be used for both input and output to the array, the type argument to ldelema must be invariant. At the time, this was a perfectly reasonable restriction, and maintained array type-safety within managed code. However, along came generics, and with it the constrained callvirt instruction. So, what happens when we combine array covariance and constrained callvirt? .method public static void CallIncrementArrayValue() { // IncrementableClassx2[] arr = new IncrementableClassx2[1] ldc.i4.1 newarr IncrementableClassx2 // arr[0] = new IncrementableClassx2(); dup newobj instance void IncrementableClassx2::.ctor() ldc.i4.0 stelem.ref // IncrementArrayValue<IncrementableClass>(arr, 0) // here, we're treating an IncrementableClassx2[] as IncrementableClass[] dup ldc.i4.0 call void IncrementArrayValue<class IncrementableClass>(!!0[],int32) // ... ret } .method public static void IncrementArrayValue<(IncrementableClass) T>( !!T[] arr, int32 index) { // arr[index].Increment(1) ldarg.0 ldarg.1 ldelema !!T ldc.i4.1 constrained. !!T callvirt instance void IIncrementable::Increment(int32) ret } And the result: Unhandled Exception: System.ArrayTypeMismatchException: Attempted to access an element as a type incompatible with the array. at IncrementArrayValue[T](T[] arr, Int32 index) at CallIncrementArrayValue() Hmm. We're instantiating the generic method as IncrementArrayValue<IncrementableClass>, but passing in an IncrementableClassx2[], hence the ldelema instruction is failing as it's expecting an IncrementableClass[]. On features and feature conflicts What we've got here is a conflict between existing behaviour (ldelema ensuring type safety on covariant arrays) and new behaviour (managed pointers to object references used for every constrained callvirt on generic type instances). And, although this is an edge case, there is no general workaround. The generic method could be hidden behind several layers of assemblies, wrappers and interfaces that make it a requirement to use array covariance when calling the generic method. Furthermore, this will only fail at runtime, whereas compile-time safety is what generics were designed for! The solution is the readonly. prefix instruction. This modifies the ldelema instruction to ignore the exact type check for arrays of reference types, and so it lets us take the address of array elements using a covariant type to the actual run-time type of the array: .method public static void IncrementArrayValue<(IncrementableClass) T>( !!T[] arr, int32 index) { // arr[index].Increment(1) ldarg.0 ldarg.1 readonly. ldelema !!T ldc.i4.1 constrained. !!T callvirt instance void IIncrementable::Increment(int32) ret } But what about type safety? In return for ignoring the type check, the resulting controlled mutability pointer can only be used in the following situations: As the object parameter to ldfld, ldflda, stfld, call and constrained callvirt instructions As the pointer parameter to ldobj or ldind* As the source parameter to cpobj In other words, the only operations allowed are those that read from the pointer; stind* and similar that alter the pointer itself are banned. This ensures that the array element we're pointing to won't be changed to anything untoward, and so type safety within the array is maintained. This is a typical example of the maxim that whenever you add a feature to a program, you have to consider how that feature interacts with every single one of the existing features. Although an edge case, the readonly. prefix instruction ensures that generics and array covariance work together and that compile-time type safety is maintained. Tune in next time for a look at the .ctor generic type constraint, and what it means.

    Read the article

  • Linux : le kernel 2.6.34 est stable, il introduit deux nouveaux systèmes de fichiers pour remplacer

    Mise à jour du 18/05/10 Le kernel 2.6.34 disponible en version stable Il introduit deux nouveaux systèmes de fichiers pour remplacer le ext4 et gérer la mémoire Flash Le kernel 2.6.34 est à présent disponible en version stable. Trois mois après la précédente version majeure du noyau (cf ci-avant), ce nouveau kernel propose deux nouveaux systèmes de gestion de fichiers. Le premier est issu du projet Ceph et sépare les données des méta-données. Ce système de fichier distribué peut faire penser à Lustre d'Oracle (utilisé par exemple dans les supercalculateurs). Même si Ceph, toujours assez expérimental, n'est pas aussi per...

    Read the article

  • Webcast su Fusion CRM – il primo appuntamento è adesso on demand!

    - by Silvia Valgoi
    Se non hai potuto seguire il webcast su Fusion CRM (in italiano!) o se lo vuoi rivedere, ecco qui il link. Il webcast rappresenta il primo appuntamento dedicato ad approfondire le novità di Fusion CRM, il nuovo standard per gestire Vendite e Marketing e per scoprire in che modo una revisione dei processi commerciali possa garantire produttività del team di vendita ed una efficace integrazione con i processi di marketing. Il prossimo appuntamento è per il 3 luglio sempre alle 12:00. In quell’occasione ci si focalizzerà più su un modulo specifico di Fusion CRM: Oracle Fusion Territory Management che rappresenta la più completa soluzione per la gestiore dei territori e delle aree. Registrati qui. Non perdere l’ultimo appuntamento prima delle vacanze!

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Exception handling 2

    - by Simon Cooper
    Control flow in and around exception handlers is tightly controlled, due to the various ways the handler blocks can be executed. To start off with, I'll describe what SEH does when an exception is thrown. Handling exceptions When an exception is thrown, the CLR stops program execution at the throw statement and searches up the call stack looking for an appropriate handler; catch clauses are analyzed, and filter blocks are executed (I'll be looking at filter blocks in a later post). Then, when an appropriate catch or filter handler is found, the stack is unwound to that handler, executing successive finally and fault handlers in their own stack contexts along the way, and program execution continues at the start of the catch handler. Because catch, fault, finally and filter blocks can be executed essentially out of the blue by the SEH mechanism, without any reference to preceding instructions, you can't use arbitary branches in and out of exception handler blocks. Instead, you need to use specific instructions for control flow out of handler blocks: leave, endfinally/endfault, and endfilter. Exception handler control flow try blocks You cannot branch into or out of a try block or its handler using normal control flow instructions. The only way of entering a try block is by either falling through from preceding instructions, or by branching to the first instruction in the block. Once you are inside a try block, you can only leave it by throwing an exception or using the leave <label> instruction to jump to somewhere outside the block and its handler. The leave instructions signals the CLR to execute any finally handlers around the block. Most importantly, you cannot fall out of the block, and you cannot use a ret to return from the containing method (unlike in C#); you have to use leave to branch to a ret elsewhere in the method. As a side effect, leave empties the stack. catch blocks The only way of entering a catch block is if it is run by the SEH. At the start of the block execution, the thrown exception will be the only thing on the stack. The only way of leaving a catch block is to use throw, rethrow, or leave, in a similar way to try blocks. However, one thing you can do is use a leave to branch back to an arbitary place in the handler's try block! In other words, you can do this: .try { // ... newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor() throw MidTry: // ... leave.s RestOfMethod } catch [mscorlib]System.Exception { // ... leave.s MidTry } RestOfMethod: // ... As far as I know, this mechanism is not exposed in C# or VB. finally/fault blocks The only way of entering a finally or fault block is via the SEH, either as the result of a leave instruction in the corresponding try block, or as part of handling an exception. The only way to leave a finally or fault block is to use endfinally or endfault (both compile to the same binary representation), which continues execution after the finally/fault block, or, if the block was executed as part of handling an exception, signals that the SEH can continue walking the stack. filter blocks I'll be covering filters in a separate blog posts. They're quite different to the others, and have their own special semantics. Phew! Complicated stuff, but it's important to know if you're writing or outputting exception handlers in IL. Dealing with the C# compiler is probably best saved for the next post.

    Read the article

  • Compile IL code at runtime using .NET 3.5 and C# from file

    - by nitefrog
    I would like to take a file that is an IL file, and at run time compile it back to an exe. Right now I can use process.start to fire off the command line with parameters (ilasm.exe) but I would like to automate this process from a C# service I will create. Is there a way to do this with reflection and reflection.emit? While this works: string rawText = File.ReadAllText(string.Format("c:\\temp\\{0}.il", Utility.GetAppSetting("baseName")), Encoding.ASCII); rawText = rawText.Replace("[--STRIP--]", guid); File.Delete(string.Format("c:\\temp\\{0}.il", Utility.GetAppSetting("baseName"))); File.WriteAllText(string.Format("c:\\temp\\{0}.il", Utility.GetAppSetting("baseName")),rawText, Encoding.ASCII); pi = new ProcessStartInfo(); pi.WindowStyle = ProcessWindowStyle.Hidden; pi.FileName = "\"" + ilasm + "\""; pi.Arguments = string.Format("c:\\temp\\{0}.il", Utility.GetAppSetting("baseName")); using(Process p = Process.Start(pi)) { p.WaitForExit(); } It is not ideal as I really would like this to be a streamlined process. I have seen examples of creating the IL at runtime, then saving, but I need to use the IL I already have in file form and compile it back to an exe. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Fault exception handlers

    - by Simon Cooper
    Fault event handlers are one of the two handler types that aren't available in C#. It behaves exactly like a finally, except it is only run if control flow exits the block due to an exception being thrown. As an example, take the following method: .method public static void FaultExample(bool throwException) { .try { ldstr "Entering try block" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) ldarg.0 brfalse.s NormalReturn ThrowException: ldstr "Throwing exception" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) newobj void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor() throw NormalReturn: ldstr "Leaving try block" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } fault { ldstr "Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) endfault } Return: ldstr "Returning from method" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) ret } If we pass true to this method the following gets printed: Entering try block Throwing exception Fault handler and the exception gets passed up the call stack. So, the exception gets thrown, the fault handler gets run, and the exception propagates up the stack afterwards in the normal way. If we pass false, we get the following: Entering try block Leaving try block Returning from method Because we are leaving the .try using a leave.s instruction, and not throwing an exception, the fault handler does not get called. Fault handlers and C# So why were these not included in C#? It seems a pretty simple feature; one extra keyword that compiles in exactly the same way, and with the same semantics, as a finally handler. If you think about it, the same behaviour can be replicated using a normal catch block: try { throw new Exception(); } catch { // fault code goes here throw; } The catch block only gets run if an exception is thrown, and the exception gets rethrown and propagates up the call stack afterwards; exactly like a fault block. The only complications that occur is when you want to add a fault handler to a try block with existing catch handlers. Then, you either have to wrap the try in another try: try { try { // ... } catch (DirectoryNotFoundException) { // ... // leave.s as normal... } catch (IOException) { // ... throw; } } catch { // fault logic throw; } or separate out the fault logic into another method and call that from the appropriate handlers: try { // ... } catch (DirectoryNotFoundException ) { // ... } catch (IOException ioe) { // ... HandleFaultLogic(); throw; } catch (Exception e) { HandleFaultLogic(); throw; } To be fair, the number of times that I would have found a fault handler useful is minimal. Still, it's quite annoying knowing such functionality exists, but you're not able to access it from C#. Fortunately, there are some easy workarounds one can use instead. Next time: filter handlers.

    Read the article

  • Article : les expressions régulières revisitées, clair et exhaustif, tout ce qu'il vous faut pour le

    Bonsoir, Cette discussion est consacrée à l'article sur les expressions régulières. Cet article présente le fonctionnement des expressions régulières, la syntaxe et l'utilisation de cet outil avec .Net. http://stormimon.developpez.com/dotn...ns-regulieres/ N'hésitez pas à poster vos commentaires et remarques concernant l'article afin de m'aider à l'améliorer. Bonne lecture ...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >