harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [snapshot] Freeze status
Date Thu, 10 May 2007 04:17:34 GMT
On 5/7/07, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephan,
>    Thanks. Any idea why we choose not to do the same with x64?

Sometime ago we agreed that M1 should be aimed to x86. Also in [2] it
was proposed to publish x86 snapshots only. So milestone candidates
for Linux x86 were built with both libstd++ libraries.

However Linux x86_64 with libstd++.so.5 snapshot was included to M1
too. I don't know why (may be Tim found that it is worth to include it
- I don't have any objection for this).

-Stepan.

> Rana
>
> On 5/6/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/4/07, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >  We have published two different snapshots for 32 bit Linux builds
> > > with libstdc++.so.5 and so.6, but only so.6 snapshots with 64 bit
> > > builds. I understand that this was a problem for a couple of users
> > > using slightly older versions of gcc. so.5 and so.6 is more a toolset
> > > and not a platform issue, and unfortunately 64 bit does not seem to
> > > imply new toolsets etc.
> >
> > Hi Rana,
> >
> > Linux snapshots are built with libstd++.so.5. In [1][2] threads
> > building with libstd++.so.6 was discussed and for M1 we published x86
> > snapshots with both dependencies.
> > In [3] Tim suggested to do only the libstdc++v6 builds but we haven't
> > discussed it yet.
> >
> > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200704.mbox/%3c000001c784e3$a4a5cb40$d2a8078b@MARVIN%3e
> >
> > [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200704.mbox/%3c46306E6A.60204@gmail.com%3e
> >
> > [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200704.mbox/%3c4632EFFF.7080703@gmail.com%3e
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan.
> >
> > >  It's quite likely that we have discussed this already on other
> > > threads, and I was not following along.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rana
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/29/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 4/30/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 4/29/07, Tim Ellison wrote:
> > > > > > Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4/29/07, Tim Ellison wrote:
> > > > > > >> It looks like a number of people have been testing
the stable build
> > > > > > >> candidate (thanks to everyone!) and so far it seems
that there are no
> > > > > > >> show stoppers for declaring this a good stable build.
 It's our best so
> > > > > > >> far, albeit with known problems etc.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Unless anything serious come to light by tomorrow,
I suggest we declare
> > > > > > >> this our M1, and reopen the code for ongoing development.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does it make sense to rebuilding M1 with debug info in
class files
> > > > > > > included?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, if you could upload a new set of builds at the current
repository
> > > > > > state that would be great.  That would include the debug info
now, and
> > > > > > no additional functional change.  We can look at refining the
JRE vs JDK
> > > > > > info after M1.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK. I'm going to create snapshots for r533500.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Done
> > > >
> > > > > -Stepan.

Mime
View raw message