Bug 24352 - Use descriptive names for dynamic methods
Summary: Use descriptive names for dynamic methods
Alias: None
Product: Android
Classification: Xamarin
Component: General ()
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: PC Mac OS
: Low enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jonathan Pryor
Depends on:
Reported: 2014-11-07 15:48 UTC by Rodrigo Kumpera
Modified: 2017-07-03 17:55 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Is this bug a regression?: ---
Last known good build:

Notice (2018-05-24): bugzilla.xamarin.com is now in read-only mode.

Please join us on Visual Studio Developer Community and in the Xamarin and Mono organizations on GitHub to continue tracking issues. Bugzilla will remain available for reference in read-only mode. We will continue to work on open Bugzilla bugs, copy them to the new locations as needed for follow-up, and add the new items under Related Links.

Our sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed on this bug tracker over the years. Thanks also for your understanding as we make these adjustments and improvements for the future.

Please create a new report for Bug 24352 on Developer Community or GitHub if you have new information to add and do not yet see a matching new report.

If the latest results still closely match this report, you can use the original description:

  • Export the original title and description: Developer Community HTML or GitHub Markdown
  • Copy the title and description into the new report. Adjust them to be up-to-date if needed.
  • Add your new information.

In special cases on GitHub you might also want the comments: GitHub Markdown with public comments

Related Links:

Description Rodrigo Kumpera 2014-11-07 15:48:37 UTC
When profiling XA apps and dynamic method are captured in backtraces they cause a lot of confusion because they are named with a GUID instead of a descriptive name.

The fix is to switch to use a descriptive name for all DynamicMethods generated by XA instead of a non-descript GUID.
Comment 1 Jon Douglas [MSFT] 2017-07-03 17:55:05 UTC
CONFIRMING this issue as per an internal discussion. This may have already been implemented, but I am confirming this bug as it relates to an internal discussion.