237202 - [META] AMD64 (x86-64) 64-bit tracking

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core Graveyard :: Tracking, defect)

Description

[Oleg Sidletskiy]

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.

Comment 1

[Jure Repinc (JLP)]

Should bug 236792 also be added to depends on list?

Comment 2

[Eyal Rozenberg]

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?

Comment 3

[Michael Moy]

(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.

Comment 4

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

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.

Comment 5

[Michael Moy]

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.

Comment 6

[Worcester12345]

(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?

Comment 7

[Michael Moy]

(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.

Comment 8

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

set platform to x86_64

Comment 9

[Virtual_ManPL [:Virtual] 🇵🇱 - (please needinfo? me - so I will see your comment/reply/question/etc.)]

Should we mark this as closed per bug #558448 creation ?

Comment 10

[Virtual_ManPL [:Virtual] 🇵🇱 - (please needinfo? me - so I will see your comment/reply/question/etc.)]

nvm, wrong copy/paste

Comment 11

[Worcester12345]

(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.

Comment 12

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

I think this bug has outlived its usefulness.

Comment 13

[Worcester12345]

17 years later, 64 bit Thunderbird being discussed for March-May time frame.