[openbeos] Re: OBOS R1 PPC Compatibility
- From: Teh Kelvin-CKT044 <Kelvin.Teh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:17:25 +0800
Yeah.... I can see your point.
A certain amount of PPC users would of course be needed to make it work, and
most developers would be happier if non-portable codes were filed as bug
reports rather than being forced to fix it before a checkin is allowed.
Anyway, I believe it is worthwhile to try and pursue this, as we should try to
retain current BeOS users (Intel and PPC) as far as possible.
How this is to be done, I guess, is still open to debate though.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Phipps [mailto:mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 3:48 AM
To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [openbeos] Re: OBOS R1 PPC Compatibility
This sounds very good in theory. I am not so sure about the practicality.
We would need at least 7 or 8 users with PPC who would be willing to compile
code at the drop of a hat (ok, with a little notice). I am *certainly* not
opposed to folks with PPCs building what is in source control and beating
people up when the code is not portable. But I would consider that a bug
report, not a "before you check in".
That makes it sort of evolutionary, anyway - if people aren't really interested
in PPC, it will fal behind/away. If people are hugely interested, they will do
the work. And it doesn't burden anyone else overly much.
If someone wanted to set up a compile "farm" (ok, one machine) that downloaded
CVS nightly and built it, that shouldn't be too much work...
>Hello all,
>
>I have been following this list for quite a while, but rarely posted anything
>so far.
>However, I just thought I would just chip in with what I think about the
>recent PowerPC-related exchanges between Nathan Whitehorn and Michael Phipps.
>I realize that it might be a little bit hard to include full PowerPC support
>in OBOS R1.
>However, as had been pointed out previously, there are other parts besides the
>kernel and low-level driver codes involved in OBOS.
>I think it would be a good idea to require that all codes written for
>non-kernel, non-driver codes (e.g. Media Kit, Game Kit, Networking, etc.) to
>be written in such a way that the modules will work without modifications when
>compiled and plugged into BeOS 5 PPC.
>From what I understand, these kits should be able to be plugged directly into
>BeOS 5 to replace the corresponding components in BeOS 5.
>They are also supposed to be hardware platform independent anyway, if good
>software design approaches are followed.
>If the codes doesn't work in BeOS 5 PPC, then the code is probably badly
>designed and should be revised.
>Besides, this would be keeping to the official OBOS R1 goals of recreating an
>OS as close as possible to BeOS 5 (I would imagine, for instance, that the
>codes for the Media Kit shouldn't differ significantly between BeOS 5 Intel
>and BeOS 5 PPC, although, of course, I do not know).
>
>As such, I would suggest that all non-kernel, non-driver OBOS codes be tested
>on BeOS 5 PPC besides BeOS 5 Intel and found to be working before it is
>allowed to be merged in, unless it can be shown that this is unavoidable,
>perhaps because of the usage of assembly language (which should be kept to a
>minimum anyway for good design, as pointed out by Michael Phipps), or because
>some Intel-specific codes had to be used in order to reduce coding time (by
>right, shouldn't occur when writing good, platform-independent software
>design, but it is understood that OBOS is facing a lack of programmers, so
>this might be needed).
>In any case, these exceptions should be clearly documented in order to ease
>the addition of the corresponding PPC codes later.
>
>I believe that these tests shouldn't take too long to do for each merge (if
>the code is written well, probably less than ten minutes to test on a BeOS 5
>PPC).
>Although the amount of additional time spent at this stage to keep the codes
>compatible on BeOS 5 PPC is minimal, it will potentially save a HUGE amount of
>time when trying to create a PPC version of OBOS later in R2.
>
>Anyway, that's just my $0.01 worth..... feel free to think about it or
>disregard it if it is not a good idea at this stage.
>
>Best regards,
>Kelvin
>
>
Other related posts:
