On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Jói<[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, you're right, Chrome's multi-process architecture would let you > host the plug-in in a 32-bit process even if the rest of Chrome is 64- > bit. However, if the extension author wants to provide both 32-bit > and 64-bit versions of the plug-in you'd need to have a way to provide > at least the filenames of both. > > The "content sniffing" approach is interesting, maybe it could be > applied generically to check all the executable files listed by the > author, and determine the right one for the current platform? :)
We actually already "content sniff" plugin files on Linux, so that we don't print a loading error when attempting to load a wrong bit-ness plugin. (Printing a loading error breaks layout tests.) Thankfully, ELF has this information in the fifth byte of the file, just after the four-byte magic number, so it's not too heinous. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
