harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony enabling at Windows / x86_64
Date Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:49:54 GMT
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.

> 2. You suggest using new ICU version 3.6. However, the version *3.4*
> is currently used in the classlib. I don't like to say that version
> 3.4 is better than version 3.6. However, there is the neighbour thread
> called "[general] Update to a new version of ICU" here in list. So IMO
> we should finalize that discussion before moving to the version 3.6
> Thanks,
> 2007/2/16, Ivan Zvolsky <i.zvolsky@gmail.com>:
>> Hello,
>> Some time ago, I found out that Harmony is not buildable on Windows / 
>> x86_64
>> (EM64T).
>> I tried to reanimate at least the build which has required to update both
>> classlib and drlvm build files, create stubs for some functions, etc.
>> I've put my results (for now only classlib part) to HARMONY-3188.
>> Could someone take a look? The comments are welcome.
>> In particular, Geir might want to look at the first comment in the
>> description :)
>> Thanks,
>> Ivan


View raw message