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 16:30:44 GMT
> The right way
> to do this would be to have different code bases and different distributions
> for W2K and WinXP.

Having different codebases is far worse, this implies separate test
suites, increased complexity of the build system and other bad things.
It would be better to avoid this if possible.

On 8/9/06, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Oleg has summarized and expressed better many of the things I was
> trying to say. A single binary on a least common denominator platform is a
> legacy binary. It runs unoptimized on other platforms. Though the term Win
> precedes these Microsoft operatig systems, that's a brand. W2K, WinXP etc.
> arecompletely different OS's with lose backward compatibility. The right way
> to do this would be to have different code bases and different distributions
> for W2K and WinXP. This may grow worse with Vista. That is unfortunate, but
> that is how Microsoft OS's are.
>
> Thanks,
> Rana
>
>
> On 8/9/06, Oleg Khaschansky <oleg.v.khaschansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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