Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rdasgupt@gmail.com designates
 64.233.182.190 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=AB1ekqiZYAWwn1QW9CLebFaPAicQ/VbGggL9WRbbJ+A6lEnFs6jGhhG5SSM9kDP+7JDV5gHhotwgZ8l1AUOgmSMkeawqNbkZTLvC3noDDU3Zhga5eW+d7Ww72XG6Xf1qmVrq22C/Dno9DOIgROKQJcH6MC6RCDqjK40LQfIkwkw=
Message-ID: <51d555c70608082345k1c0d0e58y12cb9cf4ad29aa6b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 23:45:47 -0700
From: "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasgupt@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org, geir@pobox.com
Subject: Re: [general] new snapshots up early morning... is the win2k problem
 gone?
In-Reply-To: <44D97D50.1080606@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_7610_27880019.1155105947560"
References: <8E389A5F2FEABA4CB1DEC35A25CB39CE24CF45@mssmsx411>
	 <51d555c70608081840g7c038f51t707775b31fde967e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44D97D50.1080606@pobox.com>

------=_Part_7610_27880019.1155105947560
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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
>
>

------=_Part_7610_27880019.1155105947560--