Proposal: Upgrade compiler version for Windows

[Phil Race]

Hi,

My goal here was just to point out some of the issues/scope etc so that you
and the present openjdk6 maintainers can decide how to proceed.
BTW you had written ' to accommodate usage of Visual Studio 2010 "
which I read as meaning allow in addition to VS 2003, not replace it.

-phil.

On 2/10/2014 12:05 PM, Ivan Krylov wrote:
> Phil,
>
> First, I do have a license for VS2003. And more so, one can by vs2003 
> for some third party stores, it is just that Microsoft does not sell 
> or support VS2003.
> The build problem with the compiler version is not my personal one.
>
> There is a good point about figuring out what set of builds/tests 
> could be considered comprehensive. There is no JPRT in the open. We do 
> test 32 and 64 bit builds.
> I do not have a solution that would retain compatibility with VS2003. 
> And the changes that I have borrow quite a bit of native code in 
> windows/native/java/net and awt/java2d for openjdk7. This might have 
> impact with regards to bug-to-bug compatibility with existing builds 
> of OpenJDK6 for Windows.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On 10/02/2014 23:42, Phil Race wrote:
>> There was a lot of work to the build system and source code
>> to upgrade JDK7 to VS2010. Whilst a good chunk of that work was
>> in closed repositories you will still find a fair amount to do ..
>>
>> As many as we could find/remember about got a 'vs2010' label
>> So the query 
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JDK%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20vs2010
>> probably should also give some perspective on  some of the bugs/changes
>> but doesn't give a detailed picture of the build updates needed.
>> You would need to test 32 & 64 bit on preferred build platforms
>> and ensure its builds with the free SDK as well as VS.
>> And will your patch mean that people who have Vs2003 and a set up
>> that works be broken? How will you test that if you don't have VS2003
>> Plus where you make changes to  shared build files you'll need to ensure
>> builds on other platforms aren't broken either.
>> So a lot of building and testing and follow-on fixing will result 
>> from that
>> 'patch' which makes for a non-trivial amount of work for a release 
>> that's getting old.
>>
>> -phil.
>>
>> On 2/10/2014 11:17 AM, Omair Majid wrote:
>>> * Ivan Krylov <ivan at azulsystems.com> [2014-02-10 13:57]:
>>>> The build system for OpenJDK6 for Windows uses Visual Studio 2003.
>>>> This is a problem for those who do not have a license as you may not
>>>> purchase this software anymore.
>>> Ouch.
>>>
>>>> The proposal is to modify the build systems and somewhat sources to
>>>> accommodate usage of Visual Studio 2010
>>>>
>>>> If that is something openjdk6 community is interested in I could
>>>> contribute a patch.
>>> I don't work on Windows, so I will let others who use it and develop on
>>> it chime in.
>>>
>>>> I am also unfamiliar with the logistics here: seems that not all
>>>> changes in OpenJdk6 have corresponding bug entries in OpenJDK bug
>>>> database.
>>> Yeah. It's a bit of a historical accident. When Oracle stopped
>>> developing OpenJDK 6, the rest of us decided that we need a public bug
>>> tracker and settled on https://java.net/jira/browse/OPENJDK6. We still
>>> use the original bug ids for backports, but OpenJDK6-specific bugs get
>>> this new-style bug id.
>>>
>>>> Should RFR be simply sent to this list?
>>> Yeah, this list will probably be the best place to post patches 
>>> specific
>>> to OpenJDK6 only. It will probably be better if the RFR brings the 
>>> build
>>> system closer to that of OpenJDK 7, which lists Visual Studio 2010 as
>>> the official compiler [1].
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Omair
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/raw-file/dada8003df87/README-builds.html#msvc32
>>>
>>
>