MozillaZine


64-bit 1.2final blocker bugs

Discussion of general topics about Seamonkey

should 1.2final be dependant on the 64-bit bugs?

yes
2
6%
no
18
53%
drivers decide that sort of thing, shut up and let them do it
14
41%
 
Total votes : 34

benw

User avatar
 
Posts: 13
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 7:39 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post Posted November 24th, 2002, 10:01 pm

as you're probably aware, <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174647">bug 174647</a> is the "make mozilla 1.2 not suck" bug. the list of dependencies is <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=174647">here</a>.

two of the bugs marked as dependants are <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163013">163013</a> (Add support for x86-64) and <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163018">163018</a> (Fix support for lib64 & x86-64 architectures). these are both marked as severity: enhancement and both seem a ways from being fixed.

now, as good/noble/important a goal as it is, 64-bit support hardly seems like a show-stopper feature to me, and certainly doesn't seem like a stopper to a 1.2 release. as <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174647#c64">comment 64 put it</a>, '"Severity: enhancement," need I say more?'

what i guess i'm saying is, anyone got any idea why these two are marked as stoppers for 1.2, when they're both an enhancement and a seemingly quite non-essential one at that? what's the point? they could be removed from the list, and we'd be down 2 bugs for this release, which should get it out the door sooner.

lar3ry

User avatar
 
Posts: 87
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 8:27 pm

Post Posted November 25th, 2002, 12:30 am

benw wrote:what i guess i'm saying is, anyone got any idea why these two are marked as stoppers for 1.2, when they're both an enhancement and a seemingly quite non-essential one at that? what's the point? they could be removed from the list, and we'd be down 2 bugs for this release, which should get it out the door sooner.

Because, despite what some monopolies want you to believe, the entire universe of computer systems isn't just X86 systems running toy operating systems, and Mozilla is a cross-platform browser?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!" - A. Carlson

Gunnar

User avatar
 
Posts: 729
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:55 am

Post Posted November 25th, 2002, 4:38 am

I think it's a good idea to port Mozilla to X86-64 (Hammer), but since that line of CPUs won't be available until Q1 03 at the earliest, I don't feel like this bug should be a show stopper for 1.2 (that is, unless someone can get me a test system with an X86-64 CPU ;-) )

Gunnar
http://mozilla.gunnars.net - The Mozilla Help Site

Hendikins

User avatar
 
Posts: 26
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
Location: On a train

Post Posted November 25th, 2002, 5:59 am

It appears Asa has removed the x86-64 bugs from the dependency list.

benw

User avatar
 
Posts: 13
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 7:39 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post Posted November 25th, 2002, 3:52 pm

lar3ry wrote:Because, despite what some monopolies want you to believe, the entire universe of computer systems isn't just X86 systems running toy operating systems, and Mozilla is a cross-platform browser?

agreed. just to set the record straight, i don't think it's pointless/unworthy adding 64-bit support, just that with barely any 64-bit CPUs out there, and pretty much zero in normal-user-space, it's a bit pointless having these bugs as blockers for 1.2. as gunnar so eloquently put it:

Gunnar wrote:I think it's a good idea to port Mozilla to X86-64 (Hammer), but since that line of CPUs won't be available until Q1 03 at the earliest, I don't feel like this bug should be a show stopper for 1.2 (that is, unless someone can get me a test system with an X86-64 CPU ;-) )


it's a moot point now anyway i guess, as they've been removed from the dependency list.

ed_welch

User avatar
 
Posts: 59
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 3:24 am
Location: Spain

Post Posted November 27th, 2002, 1:32 am

When Mozilla is compiled using 64-bit code, how will it be managed, supposing the user tries to install it on a 32-bit machine?
Will the Itanium also be supported?

JLP
 
Posts: 161
Joined: November 6th, 2002, 3:53 am
Location: Slovenia

Post Posted November 27th, 2002, 2:41 am

I think the sooner we get the support for x86-64 the better. It's better to be prepared in advance and when the actual x86-64 is out Mozilla already supports it. I for sure am going to buy Athlon 64 the moment it comes out and gets to the stores here.
Live long and prosper!

jonasj

User avatar
 
Posts: 24
Joined: November 6th, 2002, 4:48 am
Location: Helsingør, Denmark

Post Posted November 27th, 2002, 7:57 pm

JLP wrote:I for sure am going to buy Athlon 64 the moment it comes out and gets to the stores here.


<aolmode>Me too!</aolmode>

Can't wait for that mobile clawhammer...

ajschult
 
Posts: 3
Joined: November 28th, 2002, 4:45 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY

Post Posted November 28th, 2002, 5:11 pm

ed_welch wrote:When Mozilla is compiled using 64-bit code, how will it be managed, supposing the user tries to install it on a 32-bit machine?
Will the Itanium also be supported?


If the code is compiled for a specific architecture, it will not run on a different architecture unless it is compatible with the architecture it was compiled for. x84-64 is backward compatible to x86-32, but it doesn't work the other way around.

It is important to note that the x84-64 bugs would only add support for AMD's x84-64 architecture. Mozilla already runs just fine on multiple 64 bit architectures including DEC/Compaq Alphas, Suns and Itanium (I think). There are currently no major (code-level) 64bit bugs.

Return to SeaMonkey General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests