Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare
>> extensively
>> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things
>> related
>> to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare
>> Server
>> as it's virtualization platform.
>>
>> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project
>> with what
>> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.
>>
>>
>
> VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively.
>
> I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has
> one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not
> quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in
> either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit
> harder than on Unix platforms.

yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other
random thoughts might include:
*) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel
c compiler)
*) recent netbsd/amd64
*) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio
*) maybe solaris express/opensolaris?
*) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all

though generally the x86/x64_86 coverage seems to be quite good

>
> The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX,
> especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.

there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms that might be a
win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing.

Stefan