Re: Creating apps in 64 bits instead of 32 bits?
jwayt
>
> What about PB.Net being able to generate 64 bit apps? When will that be
> available?
As soon as the engineers quit using 32-bit base DLLs. PB assemblies
depend on underlying DLLs that are x86. The moment you mark an EXE
"anycpu", a x64 OS will vector to 64-bit DLLs and will choke on any
downstream reference to a x86 API. It cannot mix modes.
Also we went x86 and choked upon trying to use the 64-bit Oracle Client
on Win2008 64-bit OS.
The script to compile PB to C# marks assemblies 'x86'. I thought of
tampering with that until I discovered Sybase.PowerBuilder runtime
assemblies were so marked. It's just a bit flagged and there's a utility
that can change it, but Sybase's DLLs a certificated and it would break
that. The only reason to choose 'x86' is for its dependents.
Ilus
everyone agreed this was a problem caused by a simple compiler switch. Now
I wonder if someone actually set that switch for a reason? We have been
told that everything is fully managed so it shouldn't matter if that is
changed. Seems like something quick to do as well.
I have not even looked to confirm the fully managed code statement because
we are still trying to sort out constant issues with 11.x and do not have
the time to regression test an upgrade :(
Ilus
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:46:17 -0500, Roland Smith [TeamSybase]
<topwiz.smith_at_comcast_dot_net> wrote:
> What about PB.Net being able to generate 64 bit apps? When will that be
> available?
>
> "Jonathan Baker [Sybase]" <lastnamefi...@sybase.com> wrote in
> message
> news:4c802350$1@forums-1-dub...
>> Point of reference: I was only pointing out that the "128 bit OS" was
>> just
>> a rumor.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 9/2/2010 2:15 PM, Tyler Cruse wrote:
>>> 1) WOW64 will probably be supported for many years, especially in
>>> client
>>> OS, so yes 32 bit PB applications will continue to run as long as the
>>> WIN32 sub-system is supported.
>>> 2) MS has already stopped new 32 bit Server OS, Server 2008 R2 is only
>>> in 64 bit flavors
>>> 3) Many MS products have only 64 bit versions
>>> 4) In this locality it is getting difficult to find new machines that
>>> have 32 bit windows pre-installed at retail vendors
>>> 5) WIN32 API is still necessary for certain things that do not have
>>> .Net
>>> equivalents
>>>
>>> Why do we want 64 bit applications?
>>> (My Reasons)
>>> 1) Faster, much less overhead for processor mode switches
>>> 2) Ability to use more memory
>>> 3) Less prone to Virus attacks
>>> 4) Newer APIs are better, faster and safer
>>>
>>> The real question is "when" will 32 bit support go away not "if".
>>> Also there is a marketing/sales issue, money is tight with many
>>> customers. So, customers are looking to make software be viable for
>>> longer period of time. Just like me, if there is a choice between a 32
>>> bit only application and one that has both a 32 bit and a 64 bit
>>> version, I would buy the later every time.
>>>
>>> Just as I think bad things about iTunes being 32 bit and SLOW. Any one
>>> know of a 64 bit replacement?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jonathan Baker [Sybase]" <lastnamefi...@sybase.com> wrote in
>>> message news:4c7fc071$1@forums-1-dub...
>>>> The idea that Windows 8 would only support 64 and 128 bit is another
>>>> in a long line of internet rumors.
>>>>
>>>> A quick examination of the market facts will quickly dispel this
>>>> rumor. First, most of the applications that are available for Windows
>>>> are still written as 32 bit applications (take a look at your "Program
>>>> Files (x86)" folder and compare it to your 64 bit program folder to
>>>> see a quick reference). If the next version of Windows were to
>>>> eliminate 32 bit applications this entire application set would no
>>>> longer work.
>>>>
>>>> Second, the 128 bit design would need a new chip architecture to 128
>>>> bit processors. There are no major plans to create 128 bit processors
>>>> any time soon, so why would the OS move to an architecture not
>>>> supported by the underlying CPU?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/2/2010 10:04 AM, Mathieu Normandeau wrote:
>>>>> Actually, it's not possible to create PowerBuilder
>>>>> application in 64 bits, only in 32 bits. However, with
>>>>> WoW64, application written in 32 bits work in 64 bits.
>>>>> There is some rumor that said that Windows 8 will be in 128
>>>>> bits and will only support 64 bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this in the roadmap of Powerbuilder? Any expected time
>>>>> for writting apps in 64 bits?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>
>
>
Tyler Cruse
Dave Fish [Sybase]
is that if you are using ActiveX controls (in 12.1) then those will
most likely be 32-bit as well.
So it is mainly an issue of compiling the runtime assemblies with
AnyCPU as well as the generated application assemblies. Then of course
there is a lot of QA testing required. I'd like to see it added as a
project painter property with the appropriate caveats that it won't
work if using any 32-bit DLLs. I don't have an ETA on when this will
be available though.
Regards,
Dave Fish
Sybase
PowerBuilder Blog:
http://blogs.sybase.com/powerbuilder/
Bruce Armstrong
It's a matter of changing the PlatformTarget in the csproj fril from
x86 to Any. I have done that with a small WPF app and gotten to
compile cleanly. I was experimenting with deploying the WPF app in a
browser as XBAP (XBAP requires the platform target to be set to Any).
I did open a case with Sybase on this, and they indicated they were
using the same project wizard as the .Net WinForm and WebForm apps,
which was why x86 was being used. Apparently they target that
platform on those targets to ensure they can do interop for any
Windows API calls the app may make.
That's my understanding of it anyway.
-----------------------------------
My Web 2.0 Stuff
Blog: http://brucearmstrong.sys-con.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Armstrong/1600223798
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bruceaarmstrong
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bruce_armstrong
Ning: http://powerbuilder.ning.com/profile/BruceArmstrong
Xing: http://www.xing.com/profile/Bruce_Armstrong
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/brucearmstrong
Fotki: http://public.fotki.com/brucearmstrong/
Jonathan Baker [Sybase]
Roland Smith [TeamSybase]
available?
"Jonathan Baker [Sybase]" <lastnamefi...@sybase.com> wrote in message
news:4c802350$1@forums-1-dub...
> Point of reference: I was only pointing out that the "128 bit OS" was just
> a rumor.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 9/2/2010 2:15 PM, Tyler Cruse wrote:
Jonathan Baker [Sybase]
just a rumor.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On 9/2/2010 2:15 PM, Tyler Cruse wrote:
Jerry Siegel [TeamSybase]
core processor. It is clear that 32 bit is fading away as 16 bit did, so
IMHO PB needs to provide for both the early adopters and those who have
to be dragged to the next stage. That wouldn't be the first time -
wasn't it PB5 that had a choice of 16 or 32 bit deployments?
Report Bugs to Sybase: http://case-express.sybase.com/cx/welcome.do
Product Enhancement Requests:
http://my.isug.com/cgi-bin/1/c/submit_enhancement
