harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] platform support
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:56:16 GMT
2006/8/9, Oleg Khaschansky <oleg.v.khaschansky@gmail.com>:
> 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.
+1

> > >> 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...
One binary for PIII and IPF? Really bad idea!

SY, Alexey

> 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
>
>


-- 
Alexey A. Petrenko
Intel Middleware Products 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


Mime
View raw message