Re: D8 may be 32 bit only
From: Dennis Landi ([none][at][none][dot][com])
Date: 03/17/04
- Next message: ozbear: "Re: 64-bit Windows for AMD 64 is here..."
- Previous message: Jeff Molloy: "Re: 64-bit Windows for AMD 64 is here..."
- In reply to: Mike Swaim: "D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Next in thread: Mike Swaim: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Reply: Mike Swaim: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Reply: Dennis Landi: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Reply: Danny Thorpe: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:14:02 -0500
"Mike Swaim" <mpswaim@mdanderson.org> wrote in message
news:40588bb3@newsgroups.borland.com...
> There's a discussion (@
> http://weblogs.asp.net/joshwil/archive/2004/03/13/89163.aspx) as to
whether
> or not to allow 1.0 and 1.1 clr applications run 64 bit. The folks at MS
are
> leaning towards having them run in the 32 bit subsystem, because if your
app
> crashes on 64 bit windows, but runs fine on 32 bit Windows, it looks like
> it's their fault, even if it's your buggy code.
>
>
<quote>
That is what the WOW64 is about right? Just as 32bit non-managed
applications move to Win64 in the WOW64 sandbox, so would (under the context
of this discussion) 1.0/1.1 .NET applications, they will run as 32bit apps
under the 32bit v2.0 CLR. Given that scenario it means that the CLR _IS_
"smart enough to run older CLR apps the way they ran on earlier version".
Fundamentally the application users probably won't be able to tell the
difference without opening a debugger and looking at where the dlls are
getting loaded from...
</quote>
I suspected that the the Delphi IDE might run as a 32-bit app on WoW64, but
I never expected that applications generated with the D8 (or more likely D9)
compiler would suffer the same fate... But why would this have to be the
case? Couldn't the CIL output simply be tweaked to generate the right
"bitness" tags for the right platform. Yeah, it requires a recompile, but
so what? This may be the "conservative" view, but I also think its the
right way to go, because it directly involves "developer intent".
I don't really see an an issue here. This seems more of a case of a CLR
developer "thinking out loud". He (they) wil do the logical thing in the
end, and not bite off (unneccesarily) more than they can chew. A recompile
in this case is a very good thing... IMHO.
<quote>
As for Yukon, the 64bit Yukon will use the native 64bit CLR for managed
code. This stems from the fact that it is running 64bit native and that the
CLR is running in-process.
</quote>
Yukon, is native Win64 code...
-d
- Next message: ozbear: "Re: 64-bit Windows for AMD 64 is here..."
- Previous message: Jeff Molloy: "Re: 64-bit Windows for AMD 64 is here..."
- In reply to: Mike Swaim: "D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Next in thread: Mike Swaim: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Reply: Mike Swaim: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Reply: Dennis Landi: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Reply: Danny Thorpe: "Re: D8 may be 32 bit only"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|