harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Oleg Khaschansky" <oleg.v.khaschan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] platform support
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:41:09 GMT
BTW what are the real advantages of having one binary?

I'd say that having separate binaries is more flexible solution in general:
1. Don't care about performance degradation due to runtime checks.
2. Easy to port to new platforms by expanding #define's.
3. Possibility to link statically against platform-specific libraries.
4. Easy to code platform-specific calls without additional code for
dynamic invocations (calling by name, etc.).
5. Possibility of implementing functionality for one particular
platform (e.g., we have something on XP for free and need to do a hard
work enabling it on 2K), easy platform specific performance tuning.
6. Usage of platform-specific definitions won't break the build on
other platforms.

And the cost of having one binary rises with the number of differences
in the API used. IMO, the best solution is to switch to the separate
binary when the amount of platform-specific code becomes not neglible,
say 1% :) Or the workload of this code (is it the right word?) becomes
reasonably high, resulting in significant performance degradation due
to runtime checks.

> >> So the question is: should we aim to have a single binary that works on
> >> W2K PIII /and/ WinXP IPF ?
Hmm, are PIII and IPF binary compatible? At least, there are a lot of
compile-time optimizations specific to IPF, if I am not missing
something...

thanks,
  Oleg

On 8/9/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > Tim Ellison wrote:
> >> Maybe I'm missing something here, but we 'support' what ever code we
> >> have in our SVN.  If somebody wants to work on the code to make it good
> >> for W2K, or Win95, or WinCE ... then why not?  Would we really say 'no'?
> >>
> >> I agree that we may have more than one binary snapshot/release for
> >> different Windows versions -- but it is one code base, one
> >> configure/make build, etc.
> >>
> >> So the question is: should we aim to have a single binary that works on
> >> W2K PIII /and/ WinXP IPF ?
> >
> > That's a different question, isn't it?
>
> Yes, it is the question you also pose elsewhere -- can we have a binary
> that either (a) uses the lowest common denominator of the different
> windows platforms API without incurring an undue penalty performance, or
> (b) performs runtime checks and picks the best available APIs.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message