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 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:30:30 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 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 :)

Absolutely. I just said that we could have 2005 as an option on x86 
windows, not that we should switch to it.


View raw message