Open Bug 438331 (Win16Removal) Opened 16 years ago Updated 1 years ago

[meta] Remove WIN16 (support) code everywhere

Categories

(Core :: General, task)

Product:
Core
Component:
General
Platform:
x86
Windows 95
Type:
task

Tracking

()

Milestone:
Future

People

(Reporter: sgautherie, Unassigned)

References

(Depends on 2 open bugs, Blocks 1 open bug,
URL
)

Details

(Keywords: good-first-bug, meta, Whiteboard: [lang=C++])

Attachments

(8 files, 6 obsolete files)

(Av1) </xpcom/*> ++ [Checkin: Comment 4]
(deleted), patch
benjamin
: review+
benjamin
: superreview+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Bv1-CommC) <configure.in> [Checkin: Comment 8]
(deleted), patch
kairo
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Cv1-MozillaC) <configure.in> [Checkin: Comment 7]
(deleted), patch
ted
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Dv1) </tools/> [Checkin: Comment 14]
(deleted), patch
gerv
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Gv1a) Remove </config/mantomak.*> [Checkin: Comment 17]
(deleted), patch
ted
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Iv1) </embedding/> [Checkin: Comment 25]
(deleted), patch
jaas
: review+
jst
: superreview+
benjamin
: approval1.9.1-
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Jv1) </modules/plugin/> [Checkin: Comment 30]
(deleted), patch
jaas
: review+
jst
: superreview+
benjamin
: approval1.9.1-
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Kv2) <makedep.cpp> [Checkin: Comment 35]
(deleted), patch
ted
: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
+/- a revival of bug 211090, but 5 years later, when even Win98 is unsupported (by Microsoft).
The WIN16 macro shouldn't really have anything to do with Win9x and they are 32 bit OS's even if they run on 16 bit DOS. WIN16 was for Windows 3.11 and before used segmented addresses. Other than the risk of inadvertently breaking something I'm not sure there's a reason to keep all the WIN16 specific code. If someone wants to run on Windows 3.x or earlier then they're going to be in the same boat as people wanting to run on PDP-11's and such.
Sure, that's what I meant: Windows 3.x is outdated.
Keywords: meta
OS: Windows 98 → Windows 95
Depends on: 458657
(uncompiled, but trivial removals)
Assignee: nobody → sgautherie.bz
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #341873 - Flags: superreview?(benjamin)
Attachment #341873 - Flags: review?(benjamin)
Blocks: 458660
Attachment #341873 - Flags: superreview?(benjamin)
Attachment #341873 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #341873 - Flags: review?(benjamin)
Attachment #341873 - Flags: review+
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [c-n (when tree reopens): Av1]
Comment on attachment 341873 [details] [diff] [review] (Av1) </xpcom/*> ++ [Checkin: Comment 4] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4c7ccb9f3e70
Attachment #341873 - Attachment description: (Av1) </xpcom/*> ++ → (Av1) </xpcom/*> ++ [Checkin: Comment 4]
Flags: in-testsuite-
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [c-n (when tree reopens): Av1]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.1b2
No longer blocks: 458660
Depends on: 458660
(uncompiled, but trivial removals)
Attachment #342187 - Flags: review?(kairo)
(uncompiled, but trivial removals)
Attachment #342189 - Flags: review?
Attachment #342189 - Flags: review? → review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #342189 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
Comment on attachment 342189 [details] [diff] [review] (Cv1-MozillaC) <configure.in> [Checkin: Comment 7] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/08c82bfcb50f
Attachment #342189 - Attachment description: (Cv1-MozillaC) <configure.in> → (Cv1-MozillaC) <configure.in> [Checkin: Comment 7]
Attachment #342187 - Flags: review?(kairo) → review+
Comment on attachment 342187 [details] [diff] [review] (Bv1-CommC) <configure.in> [Checkin: Comment 8] http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/a4ef4b042748
Attachment #342187 - Attachment description: (Bv1-CommC) <configure.in> → (Bv1-CommC) <configure.in> [Checkin: Comment 8]
(I'm not familiar with this file; please double-check.)
Attachment #342245 - Flags: review?
Attachment #342245 - Flags: review? → review?(gerv)
Depends on: 459047
Attached patch (Ev1) </sun-java/> [Superseded by bug 485984] (obsolete) (deleted) — — Splinter Review
(uncompiled, but +/- trivial removals)
Attachment #342254 - Flags: review?(alfred.peng)
Attached patch (Fv1) </parser/> [See comment 13] (obsolete) (deleted) — — Splinter Review
(uncompiled, but trivial removals)
Attachment #342255 - Flags: superreview?(mrbkap)
Attachment #342255 - Flags: review?(mrbkap)
Attached patch (Gv1) </config/mantomak.c> (obsolete) (deleted) — — Splinter Review
(uncompiled, but trivial removals)
Attachment #342256 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Comment on attachment 342255 [details] [diff] [review] (Fv1) </parser/> [See comment 13] For consistency's sake, we should just leave the tests alone.
Attachment #342255 - Flags: superreview?(mrbkap)
Attachment #342255 - Flags: superreview-
Attachment #342255 - Flags: review?(mrbkap)
Attachment #342255 - Flags: review-
Attachment #342255 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #342245 - Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Comment on attachment 342245 [details] [diff] [review] (Dv1) </tools/> [Checkin: Comment 14] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c680133cfbae
Attachment #342245 - Attachment description: (Dv1) </tools/> → (Dv1) </tools/> [Checkin: Comment 14]
Attachment #342256 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
Comment on attachment 342256 [details] [diff] [review] (Gv1) </config/mantomak.c> r=me to just remove config/mantomak.c. I don't know what it does, and it's not used anywhere.
Gv1, with comment 15 suggestion(s), plus the '.exe' file. *** Unused in tree since at least mozilla1.7. History: http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla/config/mantomak.c http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla/config/mantomak.exe
Attachment #342256 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #343945 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #343945 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
Comment on attachment 343945 [details] [diff] [review] (Gv1a) Remove </config/mantomak.*> [Checkin: Comment 17] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/482d2613d1e0
Attachment #343945 - Attachment description: (Gv1a) Remove </config/mantomak.*> → (Gv1a) Remove </config/mantomak.*> [Checkin: Comment 17]
You want me to write a follow-up bugs for http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/ident?i=SUPPORT_W16 ?
Depends on: 461363
Depends on: 479184
(In reply to comment #18) I filed bug 461363.
Attachment #366541 - Flags: review?(wtc)
Comment on attachment 366541 [details] [diff] [review] (Hv1) </security/*> (except nss) [Moved to bug 433791] Although it's not part of the nss directory, coreconf is part of NSS. No other code uses it. So, please make this a CVS patch against the CVS trunk, and attach it to the NSS bug for eliminating Win16.
Comment on attachment 366541 [details] [diff] [review] (Hv1) </security/*> (except nss) [Moved to bug 433791] (In reply to comment #21) > So, please make this a CVS patch against the CVS trunk, I don't have a cvs checkout. > and attach it to the NSS bug for eliminating Win16. Done.
Attachment #366541 - Attachment description: (Hv1) </security/*> (except nss) → (Hv1) </security/*> (except nss) [Moved to bug 433791]
Attachment #366541 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #366541 - Flags: review?(wtc)
Attachment #342254 - Flags: review?(xiaobin.lu)
Attachment #342254 - Attachment description: (Ev1) </sun-java/> → (Ev1) </sun-java/> [Superseded by bug 485984]
Attachment #342254 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #342254 - Flags: review?(xiaobin.lu)
Attachment #342254 - Flags: review?(alfred.peng)
Comment on attachment 342254 [details] [diff] [review] (Ev1) </sun-java/> [Superseded by bug 485984] These files were removed today.
Depends on: 485984
URL: http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/s... → http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-centra...
Target Milestone: mozilla1.9.1b2 → mozilla1.9.2a1
Depends on: 487757
Keywords: helpwanted
Attachment #342255 - Attachment description: (Fv1) </parser/> → (Fv1) </parser/> [See comment 13]
Uncompiled, I hope this is simple enough...
Attachment #372020 - Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #372020 - Flags: review?(joshmoz)
Attachment #372020 - Flags: review?(joshmoz) → review+
Attachment #372020 - Flags: superreview?(jst) → superreview+
Attachment #372020 - Attachment description: (Iv1) </embedding/> → (Iv1) </embedding/> [Checkin: Comment 25]
Attachment #372020 - Flags: approval1.9.1?
Uncompiled, but trivial.
Attachment #372269 - Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #372269 - Flags: review?(joshmoz)
I assume { /modules/freetype2/builds/modules.mk * line 31 -- ifneq ($(findstring $(PLATFORM),dos win32 win16 os2),) } is an external project, not to be touched here, is it not?
{ /js/src/liveconnect/jsj_hash.c * line 133 -- #endif /* WIN16 */ * line 230 -- #endif /* WIN16 */ } will be removed by bug 442399.
Depends on: 442399
Attachment #372274 - Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #372274 - Flags: superreview?
Attachment #372274 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #372274 - Flags: review?
Attachment #372269 - Flags: review?(joshmoz) → review+
Attachment #372269 - Flags: superreview?(jst) → superreview+
Attachment #372274 - Flags: superreview?(jst) → superreview+
Comment on attachment 372269 [details] [diff] [review] (Jv1) </modules/plugin/> [Checkin: Comment 30] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/58d7af53721f
Attachment #372269 - Attachment description: (Jv1) </modules/plugin/> → (Jv1) </modules/plugin/> [Checkin: Comment 30]
Attachment #372269 - Flags: approval1.9.1?
Attachment #372269 - Flags: approval1.9.1? → approval1.9.1-
Comment on attachment 372269 [details] [diff] [review] (Jv1) </modules/plugin/> [Checkin: Comment 30] Code cleanup doesn't need to land on branch.
Attachment #372020 - Flags: approval1.9.1? → approval1.9.1-
Depends on: 488824
(In reply to comment #28) > { > /js/src/liveconnect/jsj_hash.c > * line 133 -- #endif /* WIN16 */ > * line 230 -- #endif /* WIN16 */ > } > will be removed by bug 442399. Moved to bug 488824 which I filed.
No longer depends on: 442399
Comment on attachment 372274 [details] [diff] [review] (Kv1) <makedep.cpp> I don't see the point in this comment. Either fix it the way your comment suggests, or don't bother adding the comment.
Attachment #372274 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review-
Kv1, with comment 33 suggestion(s).
Attachment #372274 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #373980 - Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #373980 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #373980 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
Blocks: Win9xRemoval
Attachment #373980 - Attachment description: (Kv2) <makedep.cpp> → (Kv2) <makedep.cpp> [Checkin: Comment 35]
Attachment #373980 - Flags: superreview?(jst)
Depends on: 506621
Depends on: 507897
(In reply to comment #36) Probably yes, I filed bug 507897 ;-)
Alias: Win16Removal
Summary: Remove WIN16 (support) code everywhere → [meta] Remove WIN16 (support) code everywhere

The bug assignee didn't login in Bugzilla in the last 7 months.
:overholt, could you have a look please?
For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.

Assignee: bugzillamozillaorg_serge_20140323 → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Flags: needinfo?(overholt)

Do we need to do anything here?

Flags: needinfo?(overholt) → needinfo?(sledru)

TIL about this autonag rule, I love it :)
We still have some references to win16 in NSPR:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=win16+&path=
Kai, can we remove them?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions, Windows Me was the last supported version

Flags: needinfo?(sledru) → needinfo?(kaie)
Target Milestone: mozilla1.9.2a1 → Future

I don't mind removing, but I also don't want to make this a priority, it seems harmless to have a little bit of old unused code.

Flags: needinfo?(kaie)

agreed

Type: defect → task
Keywords: helpwanted → good-first-bug
Whiteboard: [lang=C++]

I think I could work on a task like this, despite being on Ubuntu GNU/Linux more often than Windows nowadays. I've been looking to see how complex it is to remove as much WIN16 code as possible without breaking anything significant, but going through all the files by myself is likely to make me get lost. I want to start off with something simple, before I decide to take on more complex tasks, and I'm not fully sure if this bug is it, despite that it's not high priority.

I may want to take assignment of this bug, but before that can happen and then I proceed, I think I may need some guidance on where I should look for unused WIN16 to be removed, so that I'm not wasting my time searching somewhere unnecessary.

A lot of patches have already been landed in this bug, so I don't think we should land any more using this bug number.

I'm not too familiar with this, but presumably the idea would be to look at the search link in the URL field, find some bit of code that should be removed, then file a new bug in the appropriate component and make it block this bug. You could then assign that blocking bug to yourself if you are working on it.

Severity: trivial → S4

Hello, I am Vijendra Pandey. I am new to open-source and to Mozilla's interface too. I want to fix this bug but I don't any clue to how to clone this code on my side. Can anyone please help me out?

Assignee: nobody → serval2412
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee: serval2412 → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW

Comment on attachment 9302254 [details]
WIP: Related Bug 438331, remove WIN16 in nsprpub/pr/tests/dll/Makefile.in

Revision D161428 was moved to bug 433790. Setting attachment 9302254 [details] to obsolete.

Attachment #9302254 - Attachment is obsolete: true
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: