Current level of Windows API support

[Mark_H_]

Is there any way of quantifying where Intel's Window's Api support ends? Given that Microsoft is expanding the API continuously, and the Cloud looms ... where are we wrt the Intel IFWINTY, etc? And is there any way for those of us, that have extended the Win32 modules (for our own needs), to help others with the extensions?

[Kevin_D_Intel]

I'll ask Development to quantify the current level of support. I learned that recent changes were provided to the RTL team specific to Windows 8.1 but those have not been incorporated in a release yet.

Are you offering to help make needed changes to support additional APIs and provide those back to us? 

[Steven_L_Intel1]

The API modules are a mix of Windows versions - largely XP but with some newer APIs from 7, 8 and 8.1 added. As I've said in other threads, updating the API modules is largely a manual task and the rate at which Microsoft adds APIs is daunting.

The best help you can provide is to let us know what you want to use but is missing. If you find errors, of course, also please let us know. I recently completed a rather massive update of KERNEL32 (and associated IFWINTY declarations) to the 8.1 SDK level - it took months.  We're not allowed to take user code and incorporate it in the product, as nice as that would be, even if it's just a "translation" of Microsoft's header files. 

[Mark_H_]

Thxs Kevin & Steve,

I kinda figured the upkeep had to be daunting from INTEL's perspective. It would have been nice if there were a way to consolidate the various assistance software, of sorts. I'm sure there must be many of us who have created extensions, just hate to waste all that effort. I have SDL bindings as well. 

[Steven_L_Intel1]

The hardest part is actually identifying what is new or changed. There are various clues in the .h files but that doesn't catch everything. I am sure I spent a lot of time on interfaces nobody will ever use, so as I said, suggestions as to what to add are most welcome.

[Mark_H_]

Good to know. I'm not sure anyone has a bead on the alignment.

If there were a particular way to approach problem though, that would be inline with your (Intel) needs, then we outsiders can focus our extra support as such. Obviously not trying to add on to your supported software or efforts/burden - but it maybe a way to focus our energy, as outside library development groups, to be a more productive addition.

[andrew_4619]

Steve Lionel (Intel) wrote:

The hardest part is actually identifying what is new or changed. There are various clues in the .h files but that doesn't catch everything. I am sure I spent a lot of time on interfaces nobody will ever use, so as I said, suggestions as to what to add are most welcome.

The problem is that when you want an API call you want it now so you just make  the interfaces you want there and then so in most cases there won't be any feedback/request. For info I will check if some of the API's I use a lot have been added in the latest compiler and if not note them in a post.

[Steven_L_Intel1]

If you need an API that isn't there, let us know. Doubly so if you identify a problem with one of the API declarations - we don't always get it right the first time.

As for external libraries, if you use one that requires more than trivial things to get it working with Intel Compilers, please consider writing an article for Intel Developer Zone with the details. And if you come across one that says it "requires" an old version of an Intel compiler, let the developer know that they should make sure it works with a supported compiler version and tell them that the Intel support team is happy to help with any issues or questions.