On 5/7/07, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200704.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200704.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4/30/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
