#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
_______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs