On 03/14/2017 11:56 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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. Peter, if you need an s390 box, you can register for a virtual machine at https://developer.ibm.com/linuxone/ If you have an account let me know the details and I will try to find the right people in IBM to extend the 120 day testing period to unlimited.
