[tbb-bugs] #28716 [Applications/Tor Browser]: Create a mingw-w64-clang project

Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki blackhole at torproject.org
Tue Feb 5 10:12:47 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:36 cypherpunks]:
 > Replying to [comment:35 gk]:
 > > Replying to [comment:34 cypherpunks]:
 > > > Replying to [comment:33 gk]:


 > > > > 4) We are omitting the `DEBUG_FLAGS` (-g -gcodeview)
 > > > But not omitting https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-
 > >
 > > Yeah, I think we should make that optional, too. Mostly because we
 can't build the 32bit version as linking fails due to memory issues on my
 machines at least. And it might be better suited for setting something
 like `ac_add_options --enable-debug-symbols`.
 > Looks like a bug.


 > > > > lld patch for optionally dealing with PE header timestamp issues
 (by zeroing them out similar to ld's -Wl,--no-insert-timestamp). I'll try
 to get that one upstreamed.
 > > > Could you also try to get upstreamed that:
 > > > {{{
 > > > -  if (Args.getLastArgValue(OPT_m) != "thumb2pe" &&
 > > > -    Args.getLastArgValue(OPT_m) != "arm64pe" &&
 > > > -      Add("-dynamicbase:no");
 > > > }}}
 > > > because it's a shame in 2019.
 > >
 > > We make that explicit by passing on `-Wl,--dynamicbase`, which seems
 sufficient to me without extra work and discussion.
 > From which try? And how many other flags are missing/improperly passed?
 Silently, without discussion, yeah.

 What do you mean with "from which try"? See the patch that landed on esr60
 and enabled that for mingw-w64/clang
 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1520308). 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.

 > > > > 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. 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.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28716#comment:37>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online

More information about the tbb-bugs mailing list