[M3devel] Build Server - Plan

[microcode at zoho.com]

Hi, please see comments within:

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:02:51AM +0000, Jay K wrote:

> It is very easy to install.

Ok, from what I read here I misunderstood. But I am glad to hear it.

> Yes we support significantly more than x86/amd64.

Thanks for the explanation. I am following projects that run on non-Intel
platforms and I get a little concerned when there is movement to only run on
Intel or when there seems to be the position Intel is all there is. While I
concede Intel is overwhelmingly what people have there is also some very
nice and increasingly cheap really good hardware based on other, better
architectures and it's a shame to see that ignored into obvlivion.

I was happy to see the broad range of hardware and OS when I looked at the
CM3 download page so when somebody noted he was going to tackle the Big 3 I
was concerned because many projects and OS are now pretty much Intel only
which I think is both unfortunate and also technically limiting in terms of
code quality.

> We have SPARC32_SOLARIS and SPARC64_SOLARIS, that I test on the opencsw
> machines -- very recently even.In the 5.8.6 timeframe, I was setup to
> build and test PPC_DARWIN, PPC_LINUX, SPARC32_LINUX.Look at
> m3-sys/m3cc/src/buildmany.sh. All but ARM_DARWIN there i just built
> tonight -- the gcc-based backend. 

I remember we talked about the confusion of the various flavors of SPARC
listed in the downloads section. If people are in a consolidating mood it
might be good to just use the Solaris Studio version instead of gcc on that
platform.

> Our portability rests on gcc, or now a C compiler, or now maybe LLVM,

Well, LLVM is a significant inhibitor to running anywhere but Intel as far
as I know. LLVM SPARC does not seem to even be in the alpha stage and
doesn't look like it's on anybody's list of things to do. LLVM MIPS is also
not working well from the looks of things on the Debian MIPS list. Other
projects that have adopted LLVM seem to use it only on Intel and have stayed
with gcc on other platforms. There is a concern that will eventually be too
difficult to maintain and the natural solution will be to abandon non-Intel
hardware.

I understand and agree with the value of LLVM from the standpoint of
reducing code complexity over gcc and also the more liberal license but it's
disappointing to see only the Intel support is probably ever going to be
worth anything as far as LLVM goes.

> The system was already very portable. I have made it easier to port.
> 
> I assume the "difficult" goals are meant to be ensure that people don't
> have to jump through the hoops of "install lots of extra stuff" to get it
> to work. 

I really don't know but I would agree with that. The install should go in
standard paths and not require any prereqs, if possible.

Thank you.