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] Harmony enabling at Windows / x86_64
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:52:27 GMT

On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
>>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>> Thank you for doing this first of all. IMO patches look good in
>>>> general. However, I'd like to emphasize two things (I've already  
>>>> told
>>>> you in private about them) and let others to comment on it.
>>>> 1. In your patch you suggest to use MSVC 2005 - msvcr80.dll is used
>>>> instead of msvcr71.dll for example. Currently MSVC 2003 is required
>>>> for building the classlib. However, MSVC 2005 adds extensive  
>>>> support
>>>> for developing of 64bit applications and it looks like a natural
>>>> choice for 64bit Windows platform. So am +1 for supporting both  
>>>> MSVCs.
>>>> But I also would like to know if there are any other opinions.
>>>
>>> I think it would be good if we had a choice of microsoft tools  
>>> version. If we can support MSVC 2005 on x86_64, why not allow to  
>>> use it on x86 too? The only freely available development  
>>> environment from MS site is MSVC 2005 Community Edition. So if we  
>>> support it, it will help development for x86 version of windows.
>>>
>> Well... does it work?  besides the rt dll issue, what else is  
>> there?   Is nmake backwards compatible?  I thought one problem was  
>> that 2005 was missing something that 2003 had...
>
> I am not aware of anything missing in 2005. There are two problems  
> with it. It introduced new "secure" versions of functions like  
> strcmp and deprecated the standard C API. Including standard  
> headers produces many warnings that the functions are now  
> deprecated. But it can be worked around by adding two defines to  
> the compiler command line to make headers backwards compatible.

Right - I remember that - I was trying to use 2005 a while ago, and  
came to the same conclusion.

>
> Another problem is some new manifests stuff which I don't know very  
> well. Apparently now when linker produces a dll or exe file it also  
> creates a manifest which should be either present in the same  
> directory, or be embedded inside of the executable or dll.

That seems simple enough.

>
> Both of the above problems are probably solved in the patches by  
> Ivan, so these solutions may be applied to the x86 version as well  
> to allow people to use MSVC 2005 on plain 32-bit windows.
>

Lets just be sure we don't hurt the 2003 users :)

geir

> -- 
> Gregory
>


Mime
View raw message