Closed Bug 507513 Opened 11 years ago Closed 11 years ago

Need ABI defined for WinCE / WinMo

Categories

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

ARM
Windows CE
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(status1.9.2 beta1-fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla1.9.2a1
Tracking Status
status1.9.2 --- beta1-fixed

People

(Reporter: robert.strong.bugs, Assigned: robert.strong.bugs)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [nv] [fully fixed mozilla1.9.2a2 on m-1.9.2])

Attachments

(3 files, 1 obsolete file)

From readin others bugs it appears that no one has a good handle on what the ABI should be... me included. Even so, we still need this for app update and extension manager
Whiteboard: [nv]
WINCE_arm-msvc?
I think this should block
Flags: blocking1.9.2?
Agree; essentially blocks update.

WINCE_arm-msvc sounds fine to me.  "arm" is a bit hairy since there are a bunch of variants there, but people with binary components for arm can do runtime detection.
Flags: blocking1.9.2? → blocking1.9.2+
hmmm... perhaps the following would be better?
WINCE_armv4-msvc
WINCE_armv4i-msvc
WINCE_armv4t-msvc
WINCE_armv5-msvc
etc.?

Since we don't support thumb currently we would require support for WINCE_armv6-msvc for now unless I'm mistaken.
No; I think "arm" is actually better, because there's really no sane way to describe the full instruction set.  The version isn't enough; it might or might not have VFP, might or might not have NEON, might or might not have WMMX, etc.  We know that we basically won't support anything below armv5, so that gives developers a base instruction set to target, and they can do runtime detection and use more specific code if appropriate.
Attached patch patch rev1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
This should be all that is necessary. I'm going to compile / verify this before requesting review.
Assignee: nobody → robert.bugzilla
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment on attachment 391826 [details] [diff] [review]
patch rev1

Actually, both config.status files have s%@TARGET_XPCOM_ABI@%arm-msvc%g which is what we want so requesting review
Attachment #391826 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
We should probably verify that this doesn't make us set an XPCOM ABI for Maemo builds, since AFAIK nobody has said that's defined yet.
I hope not, because Maemo isn't using msvc :)

(Note: on maemo, we need to make sure to include 'eabi' in the abi string... this is the new ARM caling convention, linux can use both, but all new-world stuff uses eabi.  So should be something like arm-eabi-gcc4)
If TARGET_COMPILER_ABI is defined then with this change the ABI will be defined for Maemo. I'll check if it is by sending it to the try server.
frig... can't do an xpcshell test to check this on the try server since xpcshell doesn't have the ABI set.
Attached patch patch rev2Splinter Review
Vlad, do we need eabi for WinCE as well?
Attachment #391826 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #391826 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #391928 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Comment on attachment 391928 [details] [diff] [review]
patch rev2

per Vlad arm-msvc shouldn't specify eabi
Attachment #391928 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
pushed http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c7538abbd5a4
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Thanks Paul
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.2a1
Comment on attachment 391928 [details] [diff] [review]
patch rev2

>+arm)
>+    if test "$OS_TARGET" == "WINCE"; then
>+        CPU_ARCH="$OS_TEST"
>+    fi
>+    ;;
> esac

This part doesn't appear to work. should be '='
I verified earlier that it did work. What specifically are you seeing that makes you think it doesn't work?
test == is not portable. test = is
Comment on attachment 394963 [details] [diff] [review]
followup patch (pushed to mozilla-central)

*sigh*, sorry, I missed that. I hate shellscript.
Attachment #394963 - Flags: review?(benjamin) → review+
Comment on attachment 394963 [details] [diff] [review]
followup patch (pushed to mozilla-central)

Pushed to mozilla-central
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/aef07655f47f
Attachment #394963 - Attachment description: followup patch → followup patch (pushed to mozilla-central)
Comment on attachment 394963 [details] [diff] [review]
followup patch (pushed to mozilla-central)

Drivers, need this followup fix for portability on mozilla-1.9.2
Attachment #394963 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Attachment #394963 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Comment on attachment 394963 [details] [diff] [review]
followup patch (pushed to mozilla-central)

missed that this already has blocking
Flags: in-testsuite-
Whiteboard: [nv] → [nv] [fully fixed mozilla1.9.2a2 on m-1.9.2]
Attachment #428383 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
Comment on attachment 428383 [details] [diff] [review]
(Cv1-CC) Copy it to comm-central
[Checkin: Comment 26]


http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/1269773ba53e
Attachment #428383 - Attachment description: (Cv1-CC) Copy it to comm-central → (Cv1-CC) Copy it to comm-central [Checkin: Comment 26]
Product: Core → Firefox Build System
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.