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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/3/07, Pavel Ozhdikhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 4/3/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> > >
> >
>
