On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:56:36 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 The most relevant links I could find about AIX hosts only mention QEMU 0.9.1: http://www.perzl.org/aix/index.php?n=Main.Qemu http://www.vivier.eu/Qemu/ I'm not aware of any effort within IBM to support newer versions of QEMU on an AIX host (Cc'ing Laurent in case he would be aware of a non-IBM initiative). I can maybe try to grab an AIX system and see what happens. I'm okay to run the deprecation process if we choose to go that way. Cheers. -- Greg > sparc, mips, ia64, s390. > > thanks > -- PMM >
Attachment:
pgpgC5uEEJI41.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
