Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Larry Rosenman wrote: >> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare >> extensively >> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things >> related >> to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare >> Server >> as it's virtualization platform. >> >> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project >> with what >> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for. >> >> > > VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively. > > I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has > one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not > quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in > either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit > harder than on Unix platforms.
yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other random thoughts might include: *) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel c compiler) *) recent netbsd/amd64 *) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio *) maybe solaris express/opensolaris? *) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all though generally the x86/x64_86 coverage seems to be quite good > > The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, > especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story. there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms that might be a win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing. Stefan ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
