Tim, Thanks for fixing my quoting. I seem to always mess this up :-) Please see below for a couple of points...
On 8/9/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But there are degrees to which this is done too right? Somewhere along >the spectrum from a start-up check that chooses between the winxp.dll >and win2k.dll, to repeatedly choosing between any number of possible OS >function calls.
Yes, my understanding is that though we choose at startup, we will need to check the flag before many api/functionality invocations.
Oh, and I'm assuming that we are leaving the jitted code out of this. >Of course the jit will know what platform it is targeting and can >generate the code appropriately. So we are discussing the performance > of the interpreter and the compiler itself.
Right Tim and the GC and the thread manager, etc. etc. Jitted code should be fine.
The second option is to use a least common denominator approach where > we use code/functionality that is only available on the least > platform. This is not a good idea for obvious reasons. For example it > is not a good idea not to use the excellent vectored exception > handling on WinXP and Win2003( which intentionally share the same > debug and kernel codebases )If this were not, we would be writing > code for DOS only. >Again, there may be cases where you may well choose the least common >denominator solution because it is 'good enough' and the overhead >elsewhere (testing etc.) is not worth the gain found here. >Is vectored exception handling a slam dunk case for making the binary >winxp only? I don't know -- what would happen if we didn't use it? >Where is the example in the current code that makes ensuring it runs on >W2K unpalatable?
I have tried to answer some of these in a seperate reply as best as I know.
Agree, so there is a balance to be struck. But I'm guessing from you >descriptions that you favour this approach of multiple distributions for >different OS releases. Yes, I would certainly favor this :-)
Best, Rana
