[vmkit-commits] OpenJDK for vmkit 0.30 (llvm 3.0)

[Will Dietz]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Nicolas Geoffray
<nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Nicolas Geoffray
>> <nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Will,
>>> In case you don't know, llvm will release version 3.0 in a few days.
>>> Since llvm 2.3, I make a 'release' version of vmkit for each llvm release.
>>> It's is more of a bundle that compiles with the released version of llvm.
>>> I'd like to create the 'release'  branch soon, so that I can start
>>> testing vmkit 0.30 against llvm 3.0 and create the bundle. Are there extra
>>> patches you'd like to integrate for the release? Also, should we promote the
>>> OpenJDK port for the release notes, or should we wait until we have
>>> something functional that you and I have tested and used for large-size
>>> applications (eg dacapo)? Hopefully we'll be at that state the next version
>>> (0.31)?

Hi!

Very sorry about not getting back to you sooner! I don't mean to keep
you blocking on my response, and thank you for asking.

In short, I'm not sure at all.  The OpenJDK port is a bit rough (I'd
say primarily in that not a single other person has even tried it yet
AFAIK) and while I'm eager to get it out there (release early, release
often), perhaps it's not ready.  Probably don't want to be supporting
users at this point, although on the other hand early adopters are
good for working out bugs and whatnot :).

Additionally, I'm don't really have much of an idea of what the normal
criterion for announcing such things is, so I'd be inclined to go with
whatever you thought was best :).  Would it be suitable to mention
it's a work-in-progress?  I'm okay with waiting longer if you feel
that's inappropriate.

I hope to get the OpenJDK port much more robust in the coming month
(in particular, for an internal deadline), so it's sad to miss the 3.0
deadline by so little :). If only I'd started this earlier... :D

Anyway, again my apologies regarding not responding earlier, I was
hoping to have a better answer than "I don't know"--but poor form
regardless.

Take care, and as always thoughts welcome :).

~Will