harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Winx86 platform support
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:35:38 GMT
OK, I will start pegging away at it.

On 11/30/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin <pavel.ozhdikhin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rana,
>
> I think now it's just a right time to start this work. It would be good if
> you do preliminary examination of which areas need to be fixed for 64 bit
> Windows in VM/JIT. I don't think there will be many problems eith enabling
> on the JIT side - so far optimizations which do not work on EM64 (for
> example those requiring fs:14 for TLS access) are turned off there.
>
> Thanks,
> Pavel
>
>
> On 11/30/06, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This port would be really good to have, but not urgent. Obviously, the
> > biggest change is in the JIT. At the moment, I think that we should
> focus
> > on
> > stabilizing and performing on the 3 major platforms we are functional
> on.
> > The IPF port is also in progress. However, with the Vista releases early
> > next year? ( 32 and 64 bits ), 64 bit Windows will be a major platform
> and
> > we will need to be on it. I am going to start going thru DRLVM to
> identify
> > functional areas and implementation that need to change, play around
> with
> > the Microsoft 64 bit toolsets( ML64 assembler, CL, LINK, Visual Studio
> 64
> > bit ) etc. and start putting together a Windows64 porting guide on the
> > Wiki.
> > Or is it too early to do this?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On 11/29/06, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In 32 bit mode or 64 bit mode? We are not ported/functional yet on 64
> > bit
> > > Windows for exception handling, JIT etc. No [fs:14] for TLS access,
> > windows
> > > handles are 8 bytes, all the inline asm{} needs to go away, most data
> > types
> > > are different...More changes than Linux 32 -> Linux 64. I would think
> > that
> > > the work involved would be somewhat similar to an IPF port. Certainly
> > worth
> > > doing though.
> > >
> > > On 11/29/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > we do want to support this platform, but need an installed 64bit
> > windows
> > > > machine to work on - or at least someone to have it and give us
> > > > feedback.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tim Ellison wrote:
> > > > > Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> > > > >> BTW, are we interested in supporting Windows on x86_64? It is
> > listed
> > > > >> on [1] but seems nobody really tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes!  Do you have a machine to contribute to the build/test?  I'm
> up
> > > > for
> > > > > helping to fix problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message