Re: The future of Linux32 builds and tests
Steve Fink <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mozilla.devel.seamonkey |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 10/12/2015 08:21 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote: > On 10/8/2015 1:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> We recently disabled Linux32 talos testing on all trees. >> >> Going forward, the question remains, do we need to run Linux32 tests >> at all? This would reduce the complexity of our configs, as well as >> significantly reduce our AWS bill. Do the linux32 test results >> provide significant differences from the ones we run on on linux64? I >> see three options going forward >> >> 1) Run linux32 builds and tests periodically >> 2) Turn off tests but run the builds and make it a Tier 2 platform >> 3) Turn off Linux32 builds + tests entirely >> >> Your data-driven input is sought, >> >> cheers, >> Kim >> >> Bugs of note >> Disable all 32-bit linux testing >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1209932 >> Do we need linux32 talos? >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1204920 >> Disable linux32 talos testing and reimage machines for windows testing >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208449 >> > > Note that SM(arm) builds run on linux32 build slaves (and AFAIK, they > have to). Not sure where SM builds fit in with all of this, but I > figured it was at least worth explicitly calling out. I don't *think* they have to, since they run fine on my local (linux64) box. But cross-compilation always confuses me. When I run it locally, the arm-sim build (aka SM(arm)) uses my 64-bit gcc with -m32 to generate a 32-bit JS shell whose JIT generates 32-bit ARM code, and then runs it via a 32-bit ARM simulator. (I think that rest of the shell would be fine if it were compiled as 64-bit, but the simulator part only works when compiled as 32-bit x86 code?) Like I said, cross-compilation is confusing, especially when you mix in JIT and a simulator. Also note that as of very recently there is an SM(arm64) build, which is 64-bit all the way through (including generating ARM64 code). But that does not replace the need for the 32-bit ARM simulator. Generally speaking, we can't just ditch 32-bit architectures entirely because we need to be able to run on 32-bit ARM devices for the foreseeable future.