Proposal: Upgrade compiler version for Windows

[Alex Kasko]

Hi,

I think it would be great to ditch VS2003 to not have license problems 
and backporting incompatibilities like this - 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2013-December/003163.html

But I am more concerned about amd64 version. I guess Windows Server 2003 
Platform SDK support also will be ditched in spite of not having license 
problems?

Also VS2010 Express is a "registerware" may be it's better to use free 
Windows SDK 7.1 (from VS as a "toolset" or separate) as it is already 
mandatory for jdk7 amd64 "free" builds?

PS: as a side-note, VS2003 works fine (at least for builds, not sure for 
the development) on Windows 7 SP1.

On 02/10/2014 08:13 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


-Alex

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3742 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/attachments/20140211/c5f9593f/smime.p7s