harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Fursov" <mike.fur...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] IPF functionality
Date Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:33:57 GMT
The current state of the IPF code in our codebase is "it won't build". So
there are a lot of things to do before running first test.
And for -every- commit of the IPF code IPF developers plus every commiter
have to check that their changes do not break IA32/EM64T build.
If you even could not built and run a simple Hello World why to keep it in
the main trunk?

So it could be  the question of a policy for any new platform we want
support.
My proposal is to keep it in a separate branch before it can be built and is
not able to run simple tests.

+ Do we have any plans about IPF? I mean "run this application before this
date"?



On 10/13/06, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday 13 October 2006 01:37 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > How about trying to do in main line for now, reserving branch until
> needed?
> >
> > We'd agree that committers put in the patches and test on supported
> > platforms (not IPF) and those doing the IPF work test and adjust as
> > necessary.
> >
> > That way, we at least try to keep one codeline that we know works.  It
> > also would "restrict" the freedom of the IPF contributions to stay
> > within the bounds of the mainline code, and in the event an architecture
> > change is needed to support IPF that would affect other platforms, we
> > can talk together.
> >
> > I volunteer to help with the IPF patches.
>
> +1
> I agree with Geir's point of view. Let's resolve the problems in the order
> they appear. So far there were no huge changes to the code for IPF
> platform
> to create a separate branch. Once something like this appears we may
> return
> to this discussion.
>
>

-- 
Mikhail Fursov

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message