On 3/30/07, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently, the downloads page [1] separates the available snapshots
into three platforms; Windows 32-bit, Linux 32-bit and Linux 64-bit.
All of these platforms are Intel-based x86, one would have to guess.
The Wiki has a section called "porting matrix" [2], which seems
specific to DRLVM. This seems to indicate that only the latest
platforms are supported; IA32 with SSE/SSE2 (what does that even
mean?) on Linux and WinXP/2003, IA64 and AMD64 on Linux.
What I have found anecdotally is
* Classlib blows chunks on Windows 2000 because of the AWT/Swing code.
* DRLVM blows chunks, hard, on Pentium III and Pentium III Xeon systems
* IBM's VM works on Windows 2000, 2003, XP and on P3+ systems
My point being, this is confusing. At the very least, it's not clearly
documented; does the classlib have different requirements or the same
as DRLVM? DRLVM can't run on P3 chips; isn't that a little silly? How
many P3-based servers are there out there that run J2EE app servers?
Regardless, I think we need to come to a common understanding
(decision), document it and test against it.
-
I think the way the porting matrix was created was based on platforms
of interest by several people, and the "+" signs indicated what ports
people specifically signed up for. I assumed that it meant port of
classlib and DRLVM . It was not intended to be specific to DRLVM, but
to Harmony, as I understood it. Seen this way, it is still quite
accurate, as I understand( maybe we should add x86_64 explicitly ).
I agree with Nathan that the root of the confusion is what binaries we
define as a Harmony release. If it is the classlib + DRLVM, the
platforms supported will be the least common denominator platforms
only. We will need to agree on this before we can consider any
release.
