SmartAssembly 6.5 Release Candidate

dom.smith

For the last few months, our development team have been working hard rewriting much of the SmartAssembly engine to make it easier to support and easier to add new features to in the future.

That work is now almost complete, and we have a release candidate that you can download from http://downloads.red-gate.com/EAP/Smartassembly/SmartAssembly_6.5.0.982_AnyCpu_rfcafb195a7eb.exe

Subject to the notes below, this release candidate should work the same as SmartAssembly 6.2. If you experience any problems that aren't described in the release notes, please tell us in this thread.

Thank you.

Release Notes
Version 6.5 RC - October 27th, 2011

This version contains a substantially rewritten engine, which will be faster for some users (and with little speed change for most users).

Other changes are:

Tested with Windows Phone 7.1 RTM Tested with Silverlight 5 RC New 'Improve performance' option when using Automated Error Reporting Improved command line options Logging to help diagnose errors Map files are no longer deleted automatically if the assembly was not marked as released Fixed a bug where some code was not pruned when it could be. If you are an existing SmartAssembly user, you may need to add new exclusions to your code if the new, more aggressive, pruning causes problems. Minor bug fixes Requires .NET 3.5 to run No longer works with .NET 1.1 main assemblies (but you can use SmartAssembly 6.5 with .NET 1.x dependencies)

We have also removed the 'Add incorrect metadata' option because it no longer offers a reasonable amount of protection.

EricPeterson

Tried to build a project with this version. It threw an out of memory exception while obfuscating. i didnt see a way to send the error to you.

I went back to 6.2 and it worked fine.

dom.smith

Hi Eric,

Thanks for letting us know.

Can you send us some details about the project you were trying, please?

- Was it WinForms, ASP.NET, Silverlight etc?
- How many assemblies and dependencies are involved?
- Is it an application you would expect to be memory-intensive?

Thanks,

Dom.