Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #12631, comment 21


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jan 8, 2019, 10:02:36 AM (3 months ago)
Author:
gk
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #12631, comment 21

    initial v1  
    22> Updated my rbm descriptors for ARM to work with ESR 60.  https://notabug.org/JeremyRand/tor-browser-build/src/armhf-esr60 (the armhf-esr60 branch).  Docs still at https://wiki.raptorcs.com/wiki/Porting/Tor_Browser .  One noteworthy thing is that, due to what is probably https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1452128 , I needed to upgrade to gcc 7.3.0 / binutils 2.29.1.  I don't know if that's a dealbreaker for Tor (and I haven't carefully tested whether the upgrade breaks anything on non-ARM platforms).  Can anyone from Tor comment on whether the specific gcc / binutils versions used by Tor Browser were chosen for a particular reason, and whether upgrading them would be considered if it's the most straightforward way to get ARM to work?
    33
    4 Thanks for working on the ARM port, really appreciated! Updating GCC to 7.3.0 is probably no problem. Binutils 2.29.1 is trickier, though, as with binutils 2.26 we have a hard to fix reproducibility issue on Windows which currently prevents upgrading (see: #26148). We could think about using 2.29.1 just for ARM as a workaround (in case there are no reproducibility issues involved here and the Mozilla bug does not get fixed meanwhile)
     4Thanks for working on the ARM port, really appreciated! Updating GCC to 7.3.0 is probably no problem. Binutils 2.29.1 is trickier, though, as with binutils 2.26 we have a hard to fix reproducibility issue on Windows which currently prevents upgrading (see: #26148). We could think about using 2.29.1 just for ARM as a workaround (in case there are no reproducibility issues involved here and the Mozilla bug does not get fixed meanwhile).