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

[Nicolas Geoffray]

OK, Thanks Will. So I guess I can do the branching any time I want then :)

So I won't talk about openjdk support in the release notes, looks too
premature. And if you think you'll have a good working implementation for
the next release, I'd better tell about that one then! The openjdk port
will be in the bundle, if people are curious.

Besides, vmkit did have some nice improvements since llvm 2.9 that should
fill the release notes.

Cheers,
Nicolas


On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Will Dietz <wdietz2 at illinois.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/vmkit-commits/attachments/20111108/cf7cbdb6/attachment.html>