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 Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:55:32 GMT
On 3/31/07, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > Over the past few months I've been experimenting with various platform
> > configurations to run the build tests on and I've been running into
> > enormous hurdles that seem to all be turning out to be undocumented
> > platform requirements.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I agree we should have explicit machine requirements listed alongside
> the download links.
>
> > The Wiki has a section called "porting matrix" [2], which seems
> > specific to DRLVM.
>
> That should cover both DRLVM and the class library code.
>
> > 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.
>
> SSE/SSE2 refers to the extended instruction set.
>
> > 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.
>
> We sure can do a better job of describing the current requirements.  We
> could also agree on what platforms (OS/processor combinations) are most
> interesting, but of course it requires work to ensure ongoing 'support'
> for each one.  Without people stepping up to provide code and testing
> etc. then a platform will fall into disrepair.  Similarly, if somebody
> is willing to invest their time in a platform we don't think is
> interesting I doubt we would stop them.  So we've kinda got what we've got.
>
> The Porting Matrix table is looking pretty good.  We can fix up a few bits.
>
> I'd call out the current IA32 processor support as "Intel Pentium 3 CPU
> with MMX, SSE, and SSE2 support (i.e. Centrino) or better".  You may be
> able to persuade the VM/JIT people to codegen for a regular Pentium 3
> with MMX, and SSE, the class library doesn't really care.
>
> I'd call out the current Windows OS support as "Windows 2000
> Professional with SP3, or better". Not sure that we have anyone testing
> on that version, but I'd be interested to know if people don't think
> that is achievable.

I have a Windows 2000 (on a P3) box running buildtest now, but it's
blowing up. I couldn't get DRLVM to do much of anything. The classlib
+ ibmvm runs, but the tests for AWT/Swing always fail because they're
dependent on some XP/2003 library.

-Nathan

>
> For Linux we can go through each distro's naming scheme, but I suggest
> they will all be 2.4.x kernels, or better.
>
> Thoughts?
> Tim
>
>

Mime
View raw message