Closed
Bug 520224
Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
fix TARGET_XPCOM_ABI for ppc64 and s390(x)
Categories
(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)
Tracking
(status1.9.2 beta3-fixed)
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.9.3a1
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
status1.9.2 | --- | beta3-fixed |
People
(Reporter: wolfiR, Assigned: wolfiR)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
555 bytes,
patch
|
ted
:
review+
ted
:
approval1.9.2+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
719 bytes,
patch
|
Callek
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Report from Novell:
TARGET_XPCOM_ABI makes no difference between 32 and 64bit ppc architecture and doesn't recognize s390 and s390x at all.
I don't have access to that type of machines but got a proposed patch from Novell.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•16 years ago
|
||
Patch as I got it from meissner@novell.com
Assignee: nobody → mozilla
Attachment #404296 -
Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Comment 2•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404296 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
The patch looks ok to me, with one nit:
powerpc* | ppc | rs6000)
You should probably drop the wildcard here, since you're handling powerpc64 above.
I'm not sure how strict we are about XPCOM_ABI bits for tier 2/3 platforms. Is GCC's ABI stable on those archs? Given the variety of other CPU_ARCH statements there, I'm guessing "not very strict".
Attachment #404296 -
Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•16 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3d5fd10b807c
with wildcard removed.
The main reason why the CPU_ARCHS need to get recognized is to allow xul apps (as Firefox) to find the correct XRE for multiarch installations which are common for ppc*/s390* (and x86-64) architectures.
AFAIK gcc's abi is (almost) identical across all platforms since gcc3 at least.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404296 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Basically NPTOB for mozilla but keeps patch count lower for Linux distributions
Attachment #404296 -
Flags: approval1.9.2?
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•16 years ago
|
||
Asking wanted-1.9.2 as I'm wondering why that doesn't get approved or denied since weeks.
Flags: wanted1.9.2?
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #404296 -
Flags: approval1.9.2? → approval1.9.2+
Comment 6•16 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404296 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
Should have just marked this in the first place.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•16 years ago
|
||
status1.9.2:
--- → final-fixed
Flags: wanted1.9.2?
Updated•15 years ago
|
Flags: in-testsuite-
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.3a1
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
Attachment #429390 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #429390 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
Comment 9•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 429390 [details] [diff] [review]
(Bv1-CC) Copy it to comm-central
[Checkin: Comment 9]
http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/803c436845db
Attachment #429390 -
Attachment description: (Bv1-CC) Copy it to comm-central → (Bv1-CC) Copy it to comm-central
[Checkin: Comment 9]
Updated•15 years ago
|
Blocks: C192ConfSync
Updated•7 years ago
|
Product: Core → Firefox Build System
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•