Need ABI defined for WinCE / WinMo

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla1.9.2a1

Status

RESOLVED FIXED
9 years ago
8 months ago

People

(Reporter: rstrong, Assigned: rstrong)

Tracking

Trunk
mozilla1.9.2a1
ARM
Windows CE
Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(status1.9.2 beta1-fixed)

Details

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

Attachments

(3 attachments, 1 obsolete attachment)

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.
Created attachment 391826 [details] [diff] [review]
patch rev1

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.
Created attachment 391928 [details] [diff] [review]
patch rev2

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
Last Resolved: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.2a1

Comment 16

9 years ago
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?

Comment 18

9 years ago
test == is not portable. test = is
Created attachment 394963 [details] [diff] [review]
followup patch (pushed to mozilla-central)
Attachment #394963 - Flags: review?(benjamin)
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
followup pushed to mozilla-1.9.2
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/4a152dd44217
Keywords: fixed1.9.2
status1.9.2: --- → beta1-fixed
Keywords: fixed1.9.2
Flags: in-testsuite-
Whiteboard: [nv] → [nv] [fully fixed mozilla1.9.2a2 on m-1.9.2]
Created attachment 428383 [details] [diff] [review]
(Cv1-CC) Copy it to comm-central
[Checkin: Comment 26]
Attachment #428383 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)

Updated

9 years ago
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]

Updated

8 months ago
Product: Core → Firefox Build System
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.