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 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 04:51:20 GMT
On 4/1/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/4/1, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>:
> > 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
>
> some time ago we had a discussion about what does "support" mean.
> (see "[general] POLL : supported platforms" thread)
>
> So which kind of support in terms of that discussion you are talking about?

I'm going by Geir's initial email in that thread [1].

<quote>
I think we can define "support" as - "one or more people in the
community tests on that platform on a regular basis, there are users
that use that platform, and we have people volunteering to find and fix
bugs that specifically affect that platform"
</quote>

However, from looking back on this mailing list thread, I couldn't
find any decision at the end of this or much of a consensus. I would
like to pull this together, vote on it. document it (site, Wiki, etc),
test it, etc.

-Nathan

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200610.mbox/%3c4533ABF8.80303@pobox.com%3e

>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>
>
> >
> > 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