Pharo Spur 64 VM
Locked
Pharo Spur 64 VM
 
|
Is this normal, I could not find the Spur 64bit VM for Windows on the Pharo file server? It is available for Mac & Linux but there's no file in the "win" directory. tia |
|
|
Le 06/02/2017 à 21:31, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users a écrit :
Hi! IIRC, the windows VM will need some more time to be ready. Only Linux and OSX ones are usable at the moment. -- Cyril Ferlicot http://www.synectique.eu 2 rue Jacques Prévert 01, 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France |
signature.asc (836 bytes) |
|
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 21:41, Cyril Ferlicot D. <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Le 06/02/2017 à 21:31, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users a écrit : > > > Hi! > > IIRC, the windows VM will need some more time to be ready. Only Linux > and OSX ones are usable at the moment. ^ this. as Cyril says, win 64bits vm is still not ready (and it will take some more time to be). Esteban > > -- > Cyril Ferlicot > > http://www.synectique.eu > > 2 rue Jacques Prévert 01, > 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France > |
|
|
On 07/02/17 07:13, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2017, at 21:41, Cyril Ferlicot D. <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Le 06/02/2017 à 21:31, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users a écrit : >> >> >> Hi! >> >> IIRC, the windows VM will need some more time to be ready. Only Linux >> and OSX ones are usable at the moment. > > ^ this. > as Cyril says, win 64bits vm is still not ready (and it will take some more time to be). > > Esteban > Just for general curiosity, what are the main stumbling blocks in the road to a Windows 64 bit Pharo? Raffaello |
|
|
Hi Raffaello, Reportedly, the VM without the JIT (pure interpreter, also called PharoS or StackVM) works on windows 64 and FFI works with it if the VM compiled with clang but not with gcc. There is no configuration for Pharo right now. It should not be hard to add a pharo configuration to have the image start-up, but I don't think several libraries such as Athens/Cairo or libgit would work out of the box, so it's not clear such a configuration would make a lot of sense. There is no PharoS-spur64 repository on files.pharo.org right now either. Windows support is not ready mostly because: - Some C types are different in x64 between Unix and windows - Calling conventions are different in x64 bits between Unix and Windows Calling conventions have impact in switching between the interpreter and the JIT runtime and in FFI. C types being different have impact for the VM compilation and in FFI. If someone looks into it, I guess in a day of work we could have the Stack VM working with Spur 64 for Pharo without support for some librairies. There might be uncommon crashes to fix over the first week of use. With several more weeks of work (maybe a couple months), the StackVM with all libraries should be production-ready. The JIT support will take more time, hopefully it will be done in a year from now. Maybe I should mention that the company who funded 64 bits support is using the VM on Mac for development and Linux for production, so Windows was not a priority and not done. We have to rely on open-source contributors, non paid, to add Windows support and that takes time. Nicolas Cellier added the support for the 64 bits Stack VM on his free time. If someone is investing money, the 64 bits Windows VM could reach production sooner (I guess within 6 months) because someone could work full time on it. Regards, On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: On 07/02/17 07:13, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: |
|
|
Thanks Clément for the useful overview.
Raffaello On 02/03/17 16:51, Clément Bera wrote: > Hi Raffaello, > > Reportedly, the VM without the JIT (pure interpreter, also called PharoS > or StackVM) works on windows 64 and FFI works with it if the VM compiled > with clang but not with gcc. There is no configuration for Pharo right > now. It should not be hard to add a pharo configuration to have the > image start-up, but I don't think several libraries such as Athens/Cairo > or libgit would work out of the box, so it's not clear such a > configuration would make a lot of sense. There is no PharoS-spur64 > repository on files.pharo.org <http://files.pharo.org> right now either. > > Windows support is not ready mostly because: > - Some C types are different in x64 between Unix and windows > - Calling conventions are different in x64 bits between Unix and Windows > > Calling conventions have impact in switching between the interpreter and > the JIT runtime and in FFI. > C types being different have impact for the VM compilation and in FFI. > > If someone looks into it, I guess in a day of work we could have the > Stack VM working with Spur 64 for Pharo without support for some > librairies. There might be uncommon crashes to fix over the first week > of use. With several more weeks of work (maybe a couple months), the > StackVM with all libraries should be production-ready. The JIT support > will take more time, hopefully it will be done in a year from now. > > Maybe I should mention that the company who funded 64 bits support is > using the VM on Mac for development and Linux for production, so Windows > was not a priority and not done. We have to rely on open-source > contributors, non paid, to add Windows support and that takes time. > Nicolas Cellier added the support for the 64 bits Stack VM on his free > time. If someone is investing money, the 64 bits Windows VM could reach > production sooner (I guess within 6 months) because someone could work > full time on it. > > Regards, > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM, <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > On 07/02/17 07:13, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > > >> On 6 Feb 2017, at 21:41, Cyril Ferlicot D. <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >> > >> Le 06/02/2017 à 21:31, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users a écrit : > >> > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> IIRC, the windows VM will need some more time to be ready. Only Linux > >> and OSX ones are usable at the moment. > > > > ^ this. > > as Cyril says, win 64bits vm is still not ready (and it will take some more time to be). > > > > Esteban > > > > > Just for general curiosity, what are the main stumbling blocks in the > road to a Windows 64 bit Pharo? > > > Raffaello > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Clément Béra
Just asking, Did someone already tried to get funding to update the Windows VM?2017-03-02 12:51 GMT-03:00 Clément Bera <[hidden email]>:
|
|
|
My guess is, yes, while 90% of the
desktops still run Windows, probably most of the developers
related to Pharo use macOS. And since macOS is similar to Linux,
porting to Linux is easy while porting to Windows seems not for
the reasons outlined by Clément.
On 2017-03-07 04:58, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by hernanmd
Yes we know that we should improve the windows part. We agree. Now I do not know how to create money. Stef
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
|
|
I am learning a lot about this (raising money). Now if someone wants to work together to get funding (for developing/updating the Windows VM) please let me know so we can evaluate alternatives. 2017-03-07 15:24 GMT-03:00 stepharong <[hidden email]>:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list
|
|
|
In reply to this post by raffaello.giulietti
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:20:10AM +0100, Raffaello Giulietti wrote:
> probably most of the developers related to Pharo use macOS Last time (~two years ago) I asked it was about ~1/3 each platform http://www.strawpoll.me/4001583/r (also I didn't make a distinction between desktop and server, so win/mac would be even higher) here's the original thread: http://forum.world.st/quick-poll-which-OS-do-you-use-for-Pharo-td4816222.html Maybe Marcus knows download rates from files.pharo.org (although this will be heavily skewed by build systems). I would argue that its simply easier to find Mac/Linux low-level experts and contributors than Windows as the developer culture (including OSS and contributions) is different. Peter > > > > On 2017-03-07 04:58, Hernán Morales Durand wrote: > >Just asking, > > > >Did someone already tried to get funding to update the Windows VM? > >Because it's like the 90% of the world still uses Windows... > > > >Regards, > > > >Hernán > > > > > > > >2017-03-02 12:51 GMT-03:00 Clément Bera <[hidden email] > ><mailto:[hidden email]>>: > > > > Hi Raffaello, > > > > Reportedly, the VM without the JIT (pure interpreter, also called > > PharoS or StackVM) works on windows 64 and FFI works with it if > > the VM compiled with clang but not with gcc. There is no > > configuration for Pharo right now. It should not be hard to add a > > pharo configuration to have the image start-up, but I don't think > > several libraries such as Athens/Cairo or libgit would work out of > > the box, so it's not clear such a configuration would make a lot > > of sense. There is no PharoS-spur64 repository on files.pharo.org > > <http://files.pharo.org> right now either. > > > > Windows support is not ready mostly because: > > - Some C types are different in x64 between Unix and windows > > - Calling conventions are different in x64 bits between Unix and > > Windows > > > > Calling conventions have impact in switching between the > > interpreter and the JIT runtime and in FFI. > > C types being different have impact for the VM compilation and in FFI. > > > > If someone looks into it, I guess in a day of work we could have > > the Stack VM working with Spur 64 for Pharo without support for > > some librairies. There might be uncommon crashes to fix over the > > first week of use. With several more weeks of work (maybe a couple > > months), the StackVM with all libraries should be > > production-ready. The JIT support will take more time, hopefully > > it will be done in a year from now. > > > > Maybe I should mention that the company who funded 64 bits support > > is using the VM on Mac for development and Linux for production, > > so Windows was not a priority and not done. We have to rely on > > open-source contributors, non paid, to add Windows support and > > that takes time. Nicolas Cellier added the support for the 64 bits > > Stack VM on his free time. If someone is investing money, the 64 > > bits Windows VM could reach production sooner (I guess within 6 > > months) because someone could work full time on it. > > > > Regards, > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM, <[hidden email] > > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > > On 07/02/17 07:13, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > > > > >> On 6 Feb 2017, at 21:41, Cyril Ferlicot D. > > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Le 06/02/2017 à 21:31, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users a écrit : > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi! > > >> > > >> IIRC, the windows VM will need some more time to be ready. > > Only Linux > > >> and OSX ones are usable at the moment. > > > > > > ^ this. > > > as Cyril says, win 64bits vm is still not ready (and it will > > take some more time to be). > > > > > > Esteban > > > > > > > > > Just for general curiosity, what are the main stumbling blocks > > in the > > road to a Windows 64 bit Pharo? > > > > > > Raffaello > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
On 08/03/17 18:08, Peter Uhnak wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:20:10AM +0100, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: > >> probably most of the developers related to Pharo use macOS > > Last time (~two years ago) I asked it was about ~1/3 each platform http://www.strawpoll.me/4001583/r > (also I didn't make a distinction between desktop and server, so win/mac would be even higher) > here's the original thread: http://forum.world.st/quick-poll-which-OS-do-you-use-for-Pharo-td4816222.html > Interesting! The figures for Windows are rather surprising, although from the overall results it's hard to distinguish between developer's and other kind of usages. > Maybe Marcus knows download rates from files.pharo.org (although this will be heavily skewed by build systems). > Download rates can be misleading, though. How many software products are installed and used just to play around a bit and then never used again? Tons, I guess. > I would argue that its simply easier to find Mac/Linux low-level experts and contributors than Windows as the developer culture (including OSS and contributions) is different. > Yes, I agree that as a developer, for many reasons, chances are that life is usually easier on Unix-like systems than on Windows. > Peter > >> >> >> >> On 2017-03-07 04:58, Hernán Morales Durand wrote: >>> Just asking, >>> >>> Did someone already tried to get funding to update the Windows VM? >>> Because it's like the 90% of the world still uses Windows... >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Hernán >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-03-02 12:51 GMT-03:00 Clément Bera <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>: >>> >>> Hi Raffaello, >>> >>> Reportedly, the VM without the JIT (pure interpreter, also called >>> PharoS or StackVM) works on windows 64 and FFI works with it if >>> the VM compiled with clang but not with gcc. There is no >>> configuration for Pharo right now. It should not be hard to add a >>> pharo configuration to have the image start-up, but I don't think >>> several libraries such as Athens/Cairo or libgit would work out of >>> the box, so it's not clear such a configuration would make a lot >>> of sense. There is no PharoS-spur64 repository on files.pharo.org >>> <http://files.pharo.org> right now either. >>> >>> Windows support is not ready mostly because: >>> - Some C types are different in x64 between Unix and windows >>> - Calling conventions are different in x64 bits between Unix and >>> Windows >>> >>> Calling conventions have impact in switching between the >>> interpreter and the JIT runtime and in FFI. >>> C types being different have impact for the VM compilation and in FFI. >>> >>> If someone looks into it, I guess in a day of work we could have >>> the Stack VM working with Spur 64 for Pharo without support for >>> some librairies. There might be uncommon crashes to fix over the >>> first week of use. With several more weeks of work (maybe a couple >>> months), the StackVM with all libraries should be >>> production-ready. The JIT support will take more time, hopefully >>> it will be done in a year from now. >>> >>> Maybe I should mention that the company who funded 64 bits support >>> is using the VM on Mac for development and Linux for production, >>> so Windows was not a priority and not done. We have to rely on >>> open-source contributors, non paid, to add Windows support and >>> that takes time. Nicolas Cellier added the support for the 64 bits >>> Stack VM on his free time. If someone is investing money, the 64 >>> bits Windows VM could reach production sooner (I guess within 6 >>> months) because someone could work full time on it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM, <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> >>> On 07/02/17 07:13, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 6 Feb 2017, at 21:41, Cyril Ferlicot D. >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Le 06/02/2017 à 21:31, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-users a écrit : >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi! >>> >> >>> >> IIRC, the windows VM will need some more time to be ready. >>> Only Linux >>> >> and OSX ones are usable at the moment. >>> > >>> > ^ this. >>> > as Cyril says, win 64bits vm is still not ready (and it will >>> take some more time to be). >>> > >>> > Esteban >>> > >>> >>> >>> Just for general curiosity, what are the main stumbling blocks >>> in the >>> road to a Windows 64 bit Pharo? >>> >>> >>> Raffaello >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |