[Bug 908508]

[Dmandelin]

(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #103)
> (In reply to David Mandelin from comment #102)
> > This is getting really confusing--I feel like I need to back up a few steps.
> 
> Yes, i'm also confused.
> 
> > 1. First off, do you still need to leave out the executableAllocators in
> > jscntxt.h? If you have the JITs now, then it seems like you don't even need
> > to patch jscntxt.h. I'm going to assume you do, and continue, but if we
> > don't need to do anything, that would be great.
> 
> There are platforms where there's no JIT (and hence no ExecutableAllocator),
> for example sparc64 & macppc/sysv abi. So we have to #ifdef ENABLE_ASSEMBLER
> out the execAlloc uses. 

OK. Good to know.

> > 2. Second, if possible, it'd be nice to do something small and simple that
> > just fixes the immediate problem. The immediate problem, IIUC, is that you
> > can't have the executableAllocators in JSContext, and #ifdef
> > ENABLE_ASSEMBLER in jscntxt.h doesn't work. So, what about just providing a
> > dummy class for ExecutableAllocator on SPARC? Would that work? You could put
> > it in a .cpp file guarded by !ENABLE_ASSEMBLER.
> 
> To me, the immediate problem is that i've a diff that works, but it breaks
> some tests in subtle ways just because ENABLE_ASSEMBLER=1 is not propagated
> anymore under shell/ with my diff.

Sure, but if we try to get ENABLE_ASSEMBLER=1 propagated, it seems like
it's going to involve either a gross hack, or a lot of work to redo the
options everywhere. So I was looking for an easier way first.

> ExecutableAllocator.h has the arch-dependant machinery, and it #errors out
> on the archs we care about in this bug report.. because (at least!) there's
> no implementation for 'cacheFlush', which seems to require writing some
> low-level asm, and i have no idea if it can be made a nop.

Which archs do have a problem? It looks like there is an implementation
for SPARC. We're still missing PPC, I guess.

> x86/x86_64 provides an empty implementation, but iirc i tried adding ppc to
> also use that empty implem and it failed to build.

I think an empty implementation should build on PPC. Whether it's
correct, I don't know, but it only matters if using the JITs.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mozilla
Bugs, which is subscribed to firefox in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/908508

Title:
  Firefox/Thunderbird 10 FTBFS on powerpc in js/src/yarr/pcre

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/908508/+subscriptions