Tim Ellison wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something here, but we 'support' what ever code we > have in our SVN. If somebody wants to work on the code to make it good > for W2K, or Win95, or WinCE ... then why not? Would we really say 'no'? > > I agree that we may have more than one binary snapshot/release for > different Windows versions -- but it is one code base, one > configure/make build, etc. > > So the question is: should we aim to have a single binary that works on > W2K PIII /and/ WinXP IPF ?
That's a different question, isn't it? geir > > Regards, > Tim > > Rana Dasgupta wrote: >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Paulex Yang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> 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: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Paulex Yang >>>>>> China Software Development Lab >>>>>> IBM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> -- >>>>> Alexey A. Ivanov >>>>> Intel Middleware Product Division >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
