Yes, this is exactly my point. I would like to propose that the following architectures and operating systems be supported (with the following priority). Let's consider this a starting point for discussion.
1. IA32 with a minimum of P3 (SSE, not SSE2) 2. IA64/IPF (Intel 64-bit architecture) 3. x86_64/AMD64 (AMD architecture) 1. Windows 2000 SP4, Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003, Windows 2003 R2, Windows Vista 1. Linux; kernel v2.4.x, v2.6.x 2. FreeBSD v??? -Nathan On 3/31/07, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
