.NET Framework - Linking to CLR

Hello,

I'm currently porting the MicroFramework to a custom platform using the
porting kit that my company purchased. At this time, I have managed to get
ProfileDump to run on RAM after implementation of the UART, INTC, TIME,
CACHE,... drivers.

But when I try to make it run using a FLASH build, I encounter issues when
the building process reaches the CLR linking step.
It outputs me several link errors pointing to functions I have actually
implemented such as Cache or Time functions. It seems that those functions
are called by core.lib
by instance, but they don't seem to point to the right library. Even though
I checked all the makefiles and included my custom files following what is
done for the other platforms, the linker can't resolve some symbols.

It leads me to a few questions :

- Why does the CLR try to link only for FLASH builds ?

- Does the .dat files contain the CLR which is linked at the end of the
building process or is it just the managed application which is launched
after boot? If yes, which one should I use for my custom platform ? If no,
should I use one during development ?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

  Jonatha replied...

Please direct questions about using the porting kit to the discussion area of
the private Porting Kit site.

  gregAdene replied...

Sorry about that...

and discarded after some time without use - in fact the are held in an ordinary cache. To get the cache much more effective, I need to compact it is content. Reusing strings and other objects significantly extends the effective cache size. The temporaries of the deserialization are discarded by the generation 0 GC fast. So question so far that suggests reflection is needed at all. The code to build the cache needs specific knowledge of the type of object involved, but that is assumed anyway. Pete measure. Even if you have the need to generalize as the GC does, you can cache the slow parts of reflection to get good performance. For example, maintain a dictionary of questions at once. Pete This cannot happen. It would be a race condition in the CLR. Either the GC is first and this implies that target is already null. Or my Do you even know precisely how long it would take your program to rebuild the cache from scratch based on a typical or even worst-case scenario, never mind to do kinds of checks" are that expensive at all. Just as I suspect that rebuilding the cache of objects is unlikely to be a major slowdown, especially when done only periodically, I

This text may sound that the cache state object is not so good to use .NET Framework Hello! I read in a book and when I come to the Cache state the text say the following. removes cache items according to their priority. Items with a lower priority are removed first." This text may sound that if you for example store some data in the Cache state object it may have been removed when you need it because the ASP.NET runtime need more memory. The text also say that when you add items to the cache state object you can define a method that should be invoked when the cache item is removed. I mean how should I handle this when the ASP.NET runtime will remove the data in the Cache. Is the solution that when the method is called which mean that the ASP.NET runtime need more memory I will have to add my data into the Cache object again ? / / Tony C# Discussions ASP.NET (1) Bit (1) Application (1) Tony Johansson (1

Is ASP.NET engine the same as CLR .NET Framework Hello! In a book that I read it says The ASP.NET engine request is received. So my question is if ASP.NET engine is the same as CLR because it is CLR that is executing the code and not the ASP.NET engine or I am I NET people. But inasmuch as ASP.NET is managed code, then yes???there is a CLR implementation executing on the server, and the ASP.NET engine uses that CLR implementation (at the very least for your own code, and I am pretty sure also the ASP.NET framework itself). Note that the CLR implementation may or may not be the same as the desktop CLR. But it is still a CLR. Pete It is the ASP.NET engine and the CLR. Logically it is layered as

webb forms. StateType Client or Server Resources ViewState Client Cookie Client Session Server Application Server Cache Server Is it possible to say anything about which of these is best practice to all clients; should be used for server-specific state that is independent of any client Cache: I do not know the specifics of this one; caches are useful across a wide variety of kinds of state, so it is possible that "Cache" simply refers to a way to optimize access of other kinds of state. Or maybe the .NET web form "Cache" is only for a particular kind of state. Not sure. Just as when defining class is being used to host applications or tiers. A session server is a state server. Cache is typically used to hold static data that will or will not be used across without expiration client session Cookie with expiration client user Session server session Application server application Cache server application My suggestion is: you need page scope = > use view state you need user use cookie with expiration you need sessions scope = > use session you need application scope = > use cache The first two are obvious. For session scope then I cannot see any reason to many concurrent users. Application Static data - you do not see this used now there is cache. Cache Not user specific and you can associate a key. This is great for reducing

F683 It is useful, I think, to keep in mind that as far as the CLR is concerned, "casting" means only one thing: a change in type that does not change the underlying data. Other kinds of casts are actually "conversions" in CLR parlance. They can be expensive because of the reinterpretation of the data that happens (which a plain cast should not be any more expensive than "as". In both cases, the CLR is doing the same checks. I disagree that that is unfortunate. :) One of the main If so, then yes???that is exactly my point, and my motivation for keeping the CLR distinction in mind. When we talk of a "cast", it is important to understand that difference is caused by the underlying OS. Maybe, the article I quoted was right for CLR 2.0? Well, that IS something different. There are even quite a few calls to Also, the difference is bigger in release builds. I did not do a test with CLR 1 - - maybe that is where the author of the article I found got his data