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 Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:45:04 GMT
On 4/2/07, Pavel Ozhdikhin <pavel.ozhdikhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/3/07, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Agreed, let's try and get a consensus on what we will have in our M1
> > build, and a date to shoot for it.
> >
> > I think we have a reasonable idea forming that it will be (taken from
> > your list):
> >
> > - IA32/x86 with a minimum of P3 (SSE, not SSE2)
> > - IA64/IPF (Intel 64-bit architecture)
> > - x86_64/AMD64/EMT64 (AMD architecture)
> >
> > - (Windows 2000 SP4?), Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003,
> >   Windows 2003 R2, (Windows Vista?)
> > - Linux; kernel v2.4.x, v2.6.x
> > - (FreeBSD v???)
> >
> > I've put some in parentheses since we need to hear from people what work
> > is required to get them ready and stable.  I also removed the priority
> > order since I think they are all equally important if we declare them
> > stable.
> >
> > An M1 date of April 30th would give us a stable build ready for
> > ApacheCon EU and JavaOne, which seems like a good goal.  Working
> > backwards we would then focus on stability for whatever we have got from
> > April 23.
> >
> > I wonder if the Win2000 goal is possible in that timeframe?  If not I
> > suggest we live with WinXP as a minimum requirement for M1.  Do we know
> > what it takes to run on Vista/FreeBSD?  Again I'm guessing non-trivial
> > work remaining and we should drop it from M1 if so.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
>
>
>
> I think having a milestone we want to show a really fast and stable runtime
> environment, not just another snapshot of what we have to the moment. If I'm
> correct than 1 week between the feature freeze and release date is not
> enough. Working on JIT I see ~30 JIRA issues that may affect real
> applications, and running recently contributed test suites will reveal
> more. I think we should strive to fix most of them before the milestone,
> probably by the cost of limiting number of supported platforms. Then we may
> go to the next milestone, including more platforms/configurations.
>
>
>
> Having this in mind I propose to release M1 with IA32 support only, may be
> even limiting this support to Windows. Let's fix all stability problems
> there and then go to the next milestone shortly, including support for Linux
> or x86_64. I propose a feature freeze date of 15th of May and put M1 release
> date of 15th of June. At the feature freeze we should complete current
> development works and move on to stability to release a really mature
> runtime. We might have release an "release candidate" before the JavaOne
> which will have all the capabilities than our milestone build but without
> all stability issues fixed.
>
>
>
> I also have comments about configurations:
>
> *- IA32/x86 with a minimum of P3 (SSE, not SSE2)*
> **
> **
>
> SSE+SSE2 unless someone commits to test and complete on pure PIII.

I have a Windows 2000 PIII box running (failing) builds constantly
right now, so testing shouldn't be an issue. It's not surprising that
people hanging out on the list don't have PIII or Windows 2000 boxes,
but we're likely quick-adapter apologists. There is a lot of server
hardware out there that's still running PIII and Windows 2000. Try a
search for used servers on eBay.

I also have a Linux PIII Xeon (Quad) that I can run builds on as well.

-Nathan

> *- IA64/IPF (Intel 64-bit architecture)*
>
> DRLVM is poorly tested on IPF yet. This is rather for M3 milestone.
>
> *- x86_64/AMD64/EMT64 (AMD architecture)*
> Let's put this aside for the first release. We have some stability level
> there which is supported by CruiseControl and no regression on these
> platform is enough for the first release. I'm fine to include this into M1
> if someone commit to this.
>
> *- (Windows 2000 SP4?), Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003,
>   Windows 2003 R2, (Windows Vista?)*
>
>
>
> + 1 for Windows 2003, Windows XP. It's interesting to try on Vista but I'd
> give it some time to "grow up" before we go there.
>
>
> *- Linux; kernel v2.4.x, v2.6.x*
>
>
>
> I'm sure Geir will vote for Linux, but I'm reluctant to put everything in
> the first milestone.
>
>
> *- (FreeBSD v???)
> *
>
> Volunteers? ;-)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Pavel Ozhdikhin
>
> Intel Managed Runtime Division
>

Mime
View raw message