[META] AMD64 (x86-64) 64-bit tracking

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

defect
RESOLVED FIXED
16 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: berkut.bugzilla, Assigned: chofmann)

Tracking

(Depends on 2 bugs, {64bit, meta})

Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

()

This tracking bug should include bugs concerning any OS that runs on AMD
Opteron/Athlon 64 including Linux, Windows (64-bit *and* 32-bit), etc.
Depends on: 239499
Depends on: 239562
Depends on: 242926
Depends on: 243233
Depends on: 244577
Should bug 236792 also be added to depends on list?
Depends on: 236792, 249478
Depends on: 256169
Depends on: 260986
Depends on: 266812
Depends on: 275365
Depends on: 281519
Depends on: 312003
Depends on: 327124
Depends on: 328547
Depends on: 338440
Depends on: 344439
Can someone please elaborate on the general status of mozilla on the x86-64 platform? That is, does it build and run normally or are the '64-bit-safe code' bugs prevent it from building?
(In reply to comment #2)
> Can someone please elaborate on the general status of mozilla on the x86-64
> platform? That is, does it build and run normally or are the '64-bit-safe code'
> bugs prevent it from building?

I built 1.5.0.5 last night on x64 using VS2005 and it seems to work though I'm going to do some more testing on it during the day. I have 2.0 on my list of things to try one of these days. I've been away from Mozilla stuff for several months though.
At least, you cannot compile current CVS tree for Firefox 1.5 / 2.0.
Although I don't discuss with Michael, I think I want to resolve x64 build issue until 3.0.
Depends on: 345866
I apply a whole bunch of patches on top of Makoto's patches to get 1.5.0.* x64 builds to work.

I did do a trunk build early in 2006 which worked but haven't tried a 2.0 build. I may give that a shot in the future.
(In reply to comment #5)
> I apply a whole bunch of patches on top of Makoto's patches to get 1.5.0.* x64
> builds to work.
> 
> I did do a trunk build early in 2006 which worked but haven't tried a 2.0
> build. I may give that a shot in the future.
> 

Was that a Firefox trunk, or Seamonkey? Maybe try Seamonkey as well?
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I apply a whole bunch of patches on top of Makoto's patches to get 1.5.0.* x64
> > builds to work.
> > 
> > I did do a trunk build early in 2006 which worked but haven't tried a 2.0
> > build. I may give that a shot in the future.
> > 
> 
> Was that a Firefox trunk, or Seamonkey? Maybe try Seamonkey as well?

It was a Firefox trunk and it was in conjunction with testing code for either
the hash or Javascript stuff that I have two bugs open on.

I really don't have time to do SeaMonkey and I'd guess that building SeaMonkey wouldn't be a trivial task. The x64 builds of Thunderbird uses up to 1.5 GB of memory to build and I would guess that SeaMonkey would require even more.
Depends on: 345695
Depends on: 440964
set platform to x86_64
Hardware: x86 → x86_64
Depends on: 691752
(In reply to Worcester12345 from comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I apply a whole bunch of patches on top of Makoto's patches to get 1.5.0.* x64
> > builds to work.
> > 
> > I did do a trunk build early in 2006 which worked but haven't tried a 2.0
> > build. I may give that a shot in the future.
> > 
> 
> Was that a Firefox trunk, or Seamonkey? Maybe try Seamonkey as well?

(In reply to Michael Moy from comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > I apply a whole bunch of patches on top of Makoto's patches to get 1.5.0.* x64
> > > builds to work.
> > > 
> > > I did do a trunk build early in 2006 which worked but haven't tried a 2.0
> > > build. I may give that a shot in the future.
> > > 
> > 
> > Was that a Firefox trunk, or Seamonkey? Maybe try Seamonkey as well?
> 
> It was a Firefox trunk and it was in conjunction with testing code for either
> the hash or Javascript stuff that I have two bugs open on.
> 
> I really don't have time to do SeaMonkey and I'd guess that building
> SeaMonkey wouldn't be a trivial task. The x64 builds of Thunderbird uses up
> to 1.5 GB of memory to build and I would guess that SeaMonkey would require
> even more.

I would LOVE to see MMOY pick this up again! This was some great work done many moons ago, and would only be better now! Thanks.
I think this bug has outlived its usefulness.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.