harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] What platforms do we support?
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:53:06 GMT
2007/4/4, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Seems like this is not a technical discussion anyway I did some
> expiriments on my Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)  PentiumIII
> machine. Additionally to HARMONY-3246 it required a few modifications
> in sources and proper arguments to the compiler to run HelloWord and
> other applications. I can provide a patch with modifications to
> building system to build PentiumIII friendly VM. Is anyone intrested
> in this?
Yes, sure. That would be nice.
And we should check that it does not reflect performance...

SY, Alexey

>
> Evgueni.
>
> On 4/3/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fortunately we don't have to follow outcomes of those discussions
> > when we work in Harmony :)
> >
> > Still we can ask the teams you referred to provide their feedback (if possible)
> > to a wider audience
> >
> > As for the platforms some time ago Stepan said (and many people agreed to him)
> > that most of the things that we currently fix are OS-independent, so
> > we can focus
> > on 32-bit architecture and not tie ourselves much to a specific platform
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > 2007/4/3, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi Xiao Feng,
> > >   You probably missed this, but we have taken an internal Intel
> > > target to release Harmony first on Win32 in Q2 after a lot of
> > > discussions in Judy's JCM meeting, based primarily on feedback from
> > > the JIT and performance teams.
> > >
> > > Rana
> > >
> > > On 4/2/07, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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