Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <45ED0576.4060604@gmail.com>
References: <906dd82e0703050053j19350331w9376df0c3d3331ad@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0vq649grqaq.fsf@gmail.com>
	 <906dd82e0703050237u550559c8x9ea7657818fcfe9a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <906dd82e0703050237j19ee9ce2ud5a77cc18c7bd26f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <0vq1wk4rkot.fsf@gmail.com>
	 <C7122818-A890-4818-B902-62DF0598289E@pobox.com>
	 <906dd82e0703050607t1859225blef406240db980c23@mail.gmail.com>
 <6e47b64f0703052131v6e48ff3djd652b51f676b4881@mail.gmail.com>
 <45ED0576.4060604@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <C685622A-76AC-4BF7-93D9-5D44C128D085@uiuc.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Naveen Neelakantam <neelakan@uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:16:38 -0600
To: dev@harmony.apache.org

+1

On Mar 6, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Kalpak Gadre wrote:

> +1
>> I don't see a big issue here to ague about - my impression is that  
>> most of
>> the issues currently we have are OS-independent. Why not focus on
>> architecture rather then OS? We've already implementation for  
>> Windows/Linux.
>> I've heard that Windows implementation a bit more optimized (VM  
>> guys please
>> correct me if I'm wrong). But is it really doesn't matter, IMHO,  
>> they both
>> are quite solid. And I think that improving both of them won't double
>> required efforts (compared to improving implementation for one  
>> selected OS).
>>
>>
>> Let's say that x86 (Windows/Linux) is our primary focus. And next  
>> goal is to
>> be solid on x86-64 architecture.
>