[tor-bugs] #28716 [Applications/Tor Browser]: Create a mingw-w64-clang project
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki
blackhole at torproject.org
Tue Feb 5 15:37:00 UTC 2019
#28716: Create a mingw-w64-clang project
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: gk | Owner: tbb-
| team
Type: task | Status:
| needs_review
Priority: High | Milestone:
Component: Applications/Tor Browser | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: tbb-rbm, TorBrowserTeam201902R, | Actual Points:
GeorgKoppen201902 |
Parent ID: #28238 | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by gk):
Replying to [comment:38 cypherpunks]:
> Replying to [comment:37 gk]:
> > Replying to [comment:36 cypherpunks]:
> > > Replying to [comment:35 gk]:
> > > > Replying to [comment:34 cypherpunks]:
> > > > > Replying to [comment:33 gk]:
[snip]
> > I you feel we are missing flags compared to what we currently have and
what we should have, please file tickets here in case they are not filed
yet.
> Filed more than a year ago. Unaddressed.
So, they are in our bug tracker? Great! We have about 1200 bugs open for
Tor Browser and if you look carefully you'll see that the bugs get opened
faster than we can fix them. Thus, you are very welcome to provide
patches. We'd be happy to review them. This is after all a free software
project and we welcome contributions.
> > > > > > I played a bit with bumping the llvm revision to r351992 in
order to get a proper `llvm-strip` and `llvm-objcopy` but run into a bunch
of issues which made me pause for now (see:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1471698 for context).
> > > > > Why not use 8.x branch as Mozilla?
> > > >
> > > > We do, but the idea was to have proper fixes for `llvm-strip` and
`llvm-objcopy` included instead of the hacks/workarounds we and Mozilla
have currently in place instead.
> > > No, you don't, but LLVM seems is not going to merge those fixes into
8.x :( There is an idea to bump LLVM to rc2 (if you wish), but build
`llvm-strip` and `llvm-objcopy` separately from trunk.
> >
> > Yes, we *do* use the same revision as Mozilla on esr60: r348363.
> It's not Mozilla official. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1512921 for the reason.
It *is* the one Mozilla uses for mingw-w64/clang builds and thus that is
the one we care about right now as it's what is getting tested on
Mozilla's infra.
> > We could build those things separately but I am not convinced yet
that this is worth the effort and the extra complication and potential
instability.
> So, building binutils now and in LLVM to create wrappers is fine for
you, but building standalone llvm (not LLVM) to get those two utils is
somewhat different?
We don't build binutils, see the patch which is up for review. I am not
strictly opposed to build those tools, as I said. It's just that it might
be more work than it could be worth it.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28716#comment:39>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
More information about the tor-bugs
mailing list