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 07:14:24 GMT
2007/4/4, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com>:
> Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I would like to see these modifications. I wonder what you've done in
> port/src/thread/linux/apr_thread_ext.c and vmcore/include/atomics.h.
> They contain mfence and sfence instructions in inline assembly which
> have to be changed to something else on P3.
Can we produce separate binary build for P3 if it is not easy to
replace mfence/sfence?

SY, Alexey

> > 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
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory
>
>

Mime
View raw message