harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [general] What platforms do we support?
Date Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:38:13 GMT
Yes, this is exactly my point. I would like to propose that the
following architectures and operating systems be supported (with the
following priority). Let's consider this a starting point for
discussion.

1. IA32 with a minimum of P3 (SSE, not SSE2)
2. IA64/IPF (Intel 64-bit architecture)
3. x86_64/AMD64 (AMD architecture)

1. Windows 2000 SP4, Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003, Windows 2003 R2,
Windows Vista
1. Linux; kernel v2.4.x, v2.6.x
2. FreeBSD v???

-Nathan

On 3/31/07, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Currently, the downloads page [1] separates the available snapshots
> > into three platforms; Windows 32-bit, Linux 32-bit and Linux 64-bit.
> > All of these platforms are Intel-based x86, one would have to guess.
> > The Wiki has a section called "porting matrix" [2], which seems
> > specific to DRLVM. This seems to indicate that only the latest
> > platforms are supported; IA32 with SSE/SSE2 (what does that even
> > mean?) on Linux and WinXP/2003, IA64 and AMD64 on Linux.
> >
> > What I have found anecdotally is
> > * Classlib blows chunks on Windows 2000 because of the AWT/Swing code.
> > * DRLVM blows chunks, hard, on Pentium III and Pentium III Xeon systems
> > * IBM's VM works on Windows 2000, 2003, XP and on P3+ systems
> >
> > My point being, this is confusing. At the very least, it's not clearly
> > documented; does the classlib have different requirements or the same
> > as DRLVM? DRLVM can't run on P3 chips; isn't that a little silly? How
> > many P3-based servers are there out there that run J2EE app servers?
> >
> > Regardless, I think we need to come to a common understanding
> > (decision), document it and test against it.
> >
> > -
> I think the way the porting matrix was created was based on platforms
> of interest by several people, and the "+" signs indicated what ports
> people specifically signed up for. I assumed that it meant port of
> classlib and DRLVM . It was not intended to be specific to DRLVM, but
> to Harmony, as I understood it. Seen this way, it is still quite
> accurate, as I understand( maybe we should add x86_64 explicitly ).
>
> I agree with Nathan that the root of the confusion is what binaries we
> define as a Harmony release. If it is the classlib + DRLVM, the
> platforms supported will be the least common denominator platforms
> only. We will need to agree on this before we can consider any
> release.
>

Mime
View raw message