Fix Windows XP process handling.

Fix Windows XP process handling.

ProcThreadAttributeLists are not supported on Windows XP so we need
to dynamically load the functions and check that they exist. This
of course means that file descriptors are inherited on XP, but we
knew that already.

R=sgjesse@google.com
BUG=dartbug.com/7492

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=16309

[Søren Gjesse, 2012-12-19 09:51:51]

LGTM, with threading issue addressed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/11637014/diff/1/runtime/bin/process_win.cc
File runtime/bin/process_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11637014/diff/1/runtime/bin/process_win.cc#ne...
runtime/bin/process_win.cc:340: if (init_proc_thread_attr_list == NULL) {
On XP this will try to load InitializeProcThreadAttributeList for every call to
EnsureInitialized. Maybe thats not a big deal.

https://codereview.chromium.org/11637014/diff/1/runtime/bin/process_win.cc#ne...
runtime/bin/process_win.cc:341: init_proc_thread_attr_list =
reinterpret_cast<InitProcThreadAttrListFn>(
As this could be called by several threads at the same time we should probably
use some locking . On 32-bit this is not needed, but I am not sure about 64-bit.
Of cause it will be one in a million...

[Mads Ager (google), 2012-12-19 10:00:54]

https://codereview.chromium.org/11637014/diff/1/runtime/bin/process_win.cc
File runtime/bin/process_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11637014/diff/1/runtime/bin/process_win.cc#ne...
runtime/bin/process_win.cc:340: if (init_proc_thread_attr_list == NULL) {
On 2012/12/19 09:51:51, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> On XP this will try to load InitializeProcThreadAttributeList for every call
to
> EnsureInitialized. Maybe thats not a big deal.

Fixed as part of the below.

https://codereview.chromium.org/11637014/diff/1/runtime/bin/process_win.cc#ne...
runtime/bin/process_win.cc:341: init_proc_thread_attr_list =
reinterpret_cast<InitProcThreadAttrListFn>(
On 2012/12/19 09:51:51, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> As this could be called by several threads at the same time we should probably
> use some locking . On 32-bit this is not needed, but I am not sure about
64-bit.
> Of cause it will be one in a million...

Thanks. I put in locking.