2007/4/4, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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.
Can we produce separate binary build for P3 if it is not easy to
replace mfence/sfence?
SY, Alexey
> On 4/3/07, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
--
Gregory
