harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xiao-Feng Li" <xiaofeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] What platforms do we support?
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:05:09 GMT
On 4/3/07, 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.
> *- 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.

Pavel, I personally would vote Linux32 for the first release. If Win32
is easier to achieve, we probably can make is an internal
(intermediate) milestone for the real Linux32 release. (Actually I
don't know if Win32 is easier than Linux32).

Thanks,
xiaofeng

>
> *- 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