Plus, it is fun as well. A bit like finding these: https://goo.gl/CQZPYh
Dawid On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > Another reason to keep 32bit support is that people who already have > installed Java JRE from their browser tend to have the 32bit version (even if > on 64bit OS). So they will be able to test-run Solr without re-installing > Java. > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > >> 25. aug. 2015 kl. 18.47 skrev Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>: >> >> Fair enough, just wanted to be sure we weren't making extra work for >> ourselves. >> Well, actually extra work for you since you seem to be the one who interacts >> with the compiler folks the most ;). >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> From a Java point of view, there is no real difference to not support 32 >>> bit versions. The bug with JDK 9 are just bugs that could also have >>> happened with 64 bit versions. It is just easier to trigger this bug with >>> 32 bits, but I am almost sure the underlying bug also affect 64 bits. >>> >>> So why should we no longer support all platforms Java supports? Bitness >>> does not matter for our code? Should we then also no longer support Sparc, >>> PowerPC, or ARM platform? >>> -1 to add arbitrary restrictions on our runtime environment. If we want >>> this, we should disallow all platforms we don't test on and of course also >>> al processor variants we don't test on! :-) >>> >>> Uwe >>> >>> ----- >>> Uwe Schindler >>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen >>> http://www.thetaphi.de >>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 6:23 PM >>>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org >>>> Subject: Should we EOL support for 32 bit systems? >>>> >>>> I have no real skin in this game, but I thought it worth asking after Uwe's >>>> recent e-mail about disabling 32bits with -server tests. >>>> >>>> I guess it boils down to "who is using 32-bit versions?". Are we spending >>>> time/energy supporting a configuration that is not useful to enough people >>>> to merit the effort? >>>> >>>> I'm perfectly content if the response is "That's a really stupid question >>>> to ask, >>>> of course we must continue to support 32-bit OSs". >>>> Although some evidence would be nice ;) >>>> >>>> It's just that nobody I work with is running 32 bit OS's. Whether that's >>>> just my >>>> limited exposure to people running small systems is certainly a valid >>>> question. >>>> >>>> If we _do_ decide to drop support for 32 bit systems, what's the right >>>> version? 6.0? >>>> >>>> Random thoughts on a slow Tuesday morning.... >>>> >>>> Erick >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional >>>> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
