Proposal: Upgrade compiler version for Windows

[Ivan Krylov]

I would like to revive this topic. As of now Windows build for OpenJDK6 
is broken as of b31. Making it to build with VS2003 would be effectively 
repeating in some sense the effort that Oracle is doing for the 
closed-source jdk6 updates. I do not think that neither RedHat nor Azul 
nor anyone else in the community has the cycles to do this work for 
OpenJDK6.
I am proposing to adopt for openjdk6 what we already do now for Zulu: 
ditch VS2003 and adopt VS2010. Someone at Azul can prepare the patch for 
this change.
Now it is up to the maintenance lead to decide what we do here for windows.

Thanks,

Ivan


On 11/02/2014 00:13, 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>