harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [general] platform support
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:14:00 GMT


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?

geir

> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> Rana Dasgupta wrote:
>> Geir,
>>  Certainly we can support w2k if we choose to. But I think that the right
>> way to do this is to implement, build and test for W2K, not by disabling
>> code that will not run on it by trying to support a single binary image
>> across OS's. The DRLVM code has not been tested on w2k. It may not be a
>> good
>> idea to try to achieve this by commenting out the code piece by piece as we
>> hit bugs. Are we choosing build on and support W2K as a platform of choice
>> for Harmony? If we don't want to do this and just want to somehow enable
>> one
>> user, we should at least consider branching this code.
>>  I did not understand your comment about compile time/run time.
>> _WIN32_WINNT is the standard way to distinguish between Windows platforms
>> and is used everywhere to check platform capability. Are you proposing that
>> we should make dynamic runtime os version checks? I am not sure what is the
>> benefit of that.
>>  Regarding your question about whether if it runs on w2k it will also run
>> on xp, I am not sure. Usually windows oS's are binary backward compatible
>> till ~ W2K, meaning that a W2K binary should somehow run on forward OS's.
>> But that is designed only for legacy support and cannot be used for
>> performance etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/8/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Rana Dasgupta wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>  We have commented out all the stack trace handling code etc. in the NT
>>>> exception handing code in drlvm to get the same binary image to run on
>>> an
>>>> old OS like W2K. I am sorry, but I disagree with this approach.
>>> Why?  We wanted to make it so a user could try it out.  We discussed the
>>> approach, and it was a quick fix. What's the problem?
>>>
>>>> We cannot
>>>> compile sources meant for XP/W2003 and expect the binaries to run on
>>> lower
>>>> Windows OS's. Now we are hitting problems with the vectored exception
>>>> handlers which also don't exist on W2K. We cannot comment these out
>>> also!
>>>
>>> No, but we can re-engineer what we're doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>  As Alexey has pointed out, we need to guard the code with the right
>>>> _WIN32_WINT guards. The define is 0x501 on XP and 0x502 on W2003.
>>> Unless
>>>> someone has objects, I am going to turn all this code back on with the
>>>> right
>>>> _WINT filters.
>>> Defines don't solve the problem because they are compile-time, not
>>> runtime.
>>>
>>>> VEH is a feature in the new Windows code base ( the kernel,
>>>> debug etc. are common to both OS's and quite different from W2K ).
>>> If we
>>>> want to support W2K, we will need to rewrite the relevant excpetion
>>>> handling
>>>> portions and do a build for W2K seperately.
>>> Why?  Would the solution for W2k not run on WinXP?
>>>
>>>
>>>> The DRLVM code has not been
>>>> tested on W2K. There could be more problems. Worse, the code will
>>> resolve
>>>> the symbols, but behave differently.
>>> Right, and the point of making things work for the W2k user is to let
>>> that person help test.
>>>
>>>>  A part of the problem is that we haven't defined the minimum machine
>>> model
>>>> where we want our code to be supported. I would propose that for
>>>> x86-W32, we
>>>> define it as Intel Pentium IV and WinXP and Windows Server 2003.
>>> And why not 2k?
>>>
>>>> This would
>>>> allow us to get away from all these lower level kernel support and also
>>>> allow us to avoid doing a lot of unnecessary JIT floating point
>>> work. If
>>> we
>>>> want to support W2K and older machines Pentium III, we will need to
>>> make
>>>> all
>>>> the code changes needed for it and also test it on the down level
>>> machines.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/7/06, Ivanov, Alexey A <alexey.a.ivanov@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Paulex Yang [mailto:paulex.yang@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:57 AM
>>>>>> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [general] new snapshots up early morning... is the win2k
>>>>>> problem gone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for response so late, I must get to office for a win2k PC...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just tried it, the dgbhelp.dll error gone, but another one emerge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cannot locate entry AddVectoredExceptionHandler at kernel32.dll"
>>>>>> (translate from Chinese so probably you'll get a slightly different
>>>>>> message from this)
>>>>> AFAIK this feature (vectored exceptions) is available in Windows XP
>>>>> only.
>>>>> So it seems we need separate build for Win2K.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alexey.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Env:
>>>>>> win2k+sp4
>>>>>> .net framework 1.1
>>>>>> Windows PlatformSDK for Win2003
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>>>> can anyone test?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Paulex Yang
>>>>>> China Software Development Lab
>>>>>> IBM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alexey A. Ivanov
>>>>> Intel Middleware Product Division
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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