(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #103) > (In reply to David Mandelin from comment #102) > > This is getting really confusing--I feel like I need to back up a few steps. > > Yes, i'm also confused. > > > 1. First off, do you still need to leave out the executableAllocators in > > jscntxt.h? If you have the JITs now, then it seems like you don't even need > > to patch jscntxt.h. I'm going to assume you do, and continue, but if we > > don't need to do anything, that would be great. > > There are platforms where there's no JIT (and hence no ExecutableAllocator), > for example sparc64 & macppc/sysv abi. So we have to #ifdef ENABLE_ASSEMBLER > out the execAlloc uses.
OK. Good to know. > > 2. Second, if possible, it'd be nice to do something small and simple that > > just fixes the immediate problem. The immediate problem, IIUC, is that you > > can't have the executableAllocators in JSContext, and #ifdef > > ENABLE_ASSEMBLER in jscntxt.h doesn't work. So, what about just providing a > > dummy class for ExecutableAllocator on SPARC? Would that work? You could put > > it in a .cpp file guarded by !ENABLE_ASSEMBLER. > > To me, the immediate problem is that i've a diff that works, but it breaks > some tests in subtle ways just because ENABLE_ASSEMBLER=1 is not propagated > anymore under shell/ with my diff. Sure, but if we try to get ENABLE_ASSEMBLER=1 propagated, it seems like it's going to involve either a gross hack, or a lot of work to redo the options everywhere. So I was looking for an easier way first. > ExecutableAllocator.h has the arch-dependant machinery, and it #errors out > on the archs we care about in this bug report.. because (at least!) there's > no implementation for 'cacheFlush', which seems to require writing some > low-level asm, and i have no idea if it can be made a nop. Which archs do have a problem? It looks like there is an implementation for SPARC. We're still missing PPC, I guess. > x86/x86_64 provides an empty implementation, but iirc i tried adding ppc to > also use that empty implem and it failed to build. I think an empty implementation should build on PPC. Whether it's correct, I don't know, but it only matters if using the JITs. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to thunderbird in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/908508 Title: Firefox/Thunderbird 10 FTBFS on powerpc in js/src/yarr/pcre Status in The Mozilla Firefox Browser: In Progress Status in “firefox” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in “thunderbird” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Bug description: Debian has the fix, so I'll add it to the branch and it should work with the next upload. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/908508/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
