[openbeos] Re: OBOS R1 PPC Compatibility
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 14:47:56 -0500
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:
