On 14 March 2017 at 09:59, Juan Quintela <quintela@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 14 March 2017 at 09:13, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:02:01AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> The minimum requirements for the new language: >>> 1. Does it support the host operating systems that QEMU runs on? >>> 2. Does it support the host architectures that QEMU runs on? >> >> Speaking of this, I was thinking that we should introduce >> a rule that for any host OS/arch we support we must have >> a build machine so we can at least do a compile test. >> For instance if you believe configure we support Solaris >> and AIX, but I bet they're bit-rotting. The ia64 backend >> has to be a strong candidate for being dumped too. >> Demanding "system we can test on or we drop support" >> would let us more clearly see what we're actually running >> on and avoid unnecessarily ruling things out because they >> don't support Itanium or AIX... > > YES, YES and YES. > > I demand an osX build machine NOW!!!! Remote access is ok. OSX is actually in the set that's OK because I have a machine I can test on. The ones that are problems are all the BSDs, AIX, Solaris, Haiku, and architectures sparc, mips, ia64, s390. thanks -- PMM
