harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] What platforms do we support?
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:08:44 GMT
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.

> 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