clr

I have a SQL CLR dll I want to deploy, but have found you can embed the byte stream/varbinary_literal/ varbinary_expression/assembly bits into a text file to get around the messy hassle of packaging a DLL and making sure it's accessible for the CREATE ASSEMBLY command . But what I have yet to find is how to get that byte stream/varbinary_literal/ varbinary_expression/assembly bits value. I haven't found any consistent terminology, and what I keep finding in using Load() . It's just a hex representation of the dll. This bit should do the trick: static string GetHexString(string assemblyPath) {

In the past not every new version of .NET came with a new version of the CLR. I know .NET 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 4.0 did, but .NET 3.0 and 3.5 did not. Will .NET 4.5 introduce a new CLR? And how does one tell if there's a new CLR? Yes, .NET 4.5 has a brand spanking new version of the CLR, you can read about the improvements at; http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/sasha/archive/2011/09/17/improvements-in-the-clr-core-in-net-framework-4-5.aspx To clarify; this is a new version of the CLR that actually replaces the 4.0 one, so whether to call it an update or a new CLR is disputable. To tell which CLR

This causes an AccessViolationException to be thrown: using System; namespace TestApplication { internal static class Program { private static unsafe void Main() { ulong* addr = (ulong*)Int64.MaxValue; ulong val = *addr; } } } This causes a NullReferenceException to be thrown: using System; namespace TestApplication { internal static class Program { private static unsafe void Main() { ulong* addr = (ulong*)0x000000000000FF; ulong val = *addr; } } } They're both invalid pointers and both violate memory access rules. Why the NullReferenceException? This is caused by a Windows design decision

I've been trying to determine what the true cost of using the fixed statement within C# for managed unsafe structs that contain fixed arrays. Please note I am not referring to unmanaged structs. Specifically, is there any reason to avoid the pattern shown by 'MultipleFixed' class below? Is the cost of simply fixing the data non zero, near zero (== cost similar to setting & clearing a single flag when entering/exiting the fixed scope), or is it significant enough to avoid when possible? Obviously these classes are contrived to help explain the question. This is for a high usage data structure

Description This is not a real world example! Please don't suggest using decimal or something else. I am only asking this because I really want to know why this happens. I recently saw the awesome Tekpub Webcast Mastering C# 4.0 with Jon Skeet again. On episode 7 - Decimals and Floating Points it is going really weird and even our Chuck Norris of Programming (aka Jon Skeet) does not have a real answer to my question. Only a might be . Question: Why did MyTestMethod() fail and MyTestMethod2() pass? Example 1 [Test] public void MyTestMethod() { double d = 0.1d; d += 0.1d; d += 0.1d; d += 0.1d; d

int[] a = new int[5]; string[] b = new string[1]; The types of both a and b inherit from the abstract System.Array , but there is no real classes in the built-in library(it seems that there are some runtime types, you can't find the type defination class of an int[] ). Can you tell me what happens while compiling? And why did they(the c# team) make this design(I mean why it's not something like Array<T> ,instead they are using an abstract class with compiler magics)? Trying to reason this out within the .NET type system doesn't get you very far. There is core support built into the JIT

I would like to try this code: public struct Direction { private int _azimuth; public int Azimuth { get { return _azimuth; } set { _azimuth = value; } } public Direction(int azimuth) { Azimuth = azimuth } } But it fails on compilation, I understand that struct need to init all its fields. but i am trying to understand what happens under the CLR\IL hoods. why it need all the fields before any other method\property\this etc. Thanks. Value Types are created on the stack (unless nested within a reference type) There is something about fields/locations on the stack that the CLR can't guarantee that