Re: [tor-bugs] #12631 [Applications/Tor Browser]: Tor Browser for ARM architecture

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#12631: Tor Browser for ARM architecture
-------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
 Reporter:  mttp                           |          Owner:  (none)
     Type:  project                        |         Status:
                                           |  needs_revision
 Priority:  Medium                         |      Milestone:
Component:  Applications/Tor Browser       |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                         |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  tbb-rbm, TorBrowserTeam201904  |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                                 |         Points:
 Reviewer:                                 |        Sponsor:
-------------------------------------------+-------------------------------

Comment (by gk):

 Replying to [comment:35 JeremyRand]:
 > Hi @gk, thank you for the review.
 >
 > > 1) We should start to get the compiler related things right. I don't
 understand why you need to add a gcc-cross project in addition to the gcc
 project. Cross-compiling GCC so it is usable for a given target should
 just get included in the gcc project both in its config and build file I
 think.
 >
 > The reasoning here was that building a GCC cross-compiler is somewhat
 more complex than building a non-cross GCC, because with a non-cross-
 compiler, the C/C++ standard libraries shipped with Debian are sufficient,
 whereas building a cross-compiler requires building the C/C++ standard
 libraries from source.  I therefore suspected that patching the gcc
 project to build the C/C++ standard libraries would be considered too
 invasive, and I instead opted for adding a gcc-cross project so that, if
 it broke anything, the breakage would be isolated to the linux-arm target
 instead of all linux targets.  I intended to submit a follow-up patch that
 made all linux targets use gcc-cross once that code had gotten some more
 testing by the community.  That said, if you're comfortable simply adding
 that functionality to the gcc project, then I have no objection to doing
 so as part of this patch rather than as a follow-up patch later.  (Who
 knows, building the standard C/C++ library from source might yield
 improvements in reproducibility and resistance to supply-chain attacks, so
 it may be a good thing.)

 No, this approach makes sense. Maybe the project could be more
 descriptive, though, like `gcc-armhf`.

 [snipping the remaining items due to current lack of time; I hope you can
 make progress without all questions resolved in them, though]

 > Okay, sounds good.  Do you prefer GCC 7.4.0 or 7.3.0?  My patch switches
 to 7.3.0 since that was the one that someone from the Mozilla Bugzilla
 thread said definitely worked.  I'd have no objection to trying 7.4.0, or
 8, if you want that (though since I haven't tested those versions, I have
 no idea whether it will introduce new bugs).

 I think we'll go with 8.3.0 for esr68 (I hope to land this change for
 esr60 already soon).

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/12631#comment:36>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online

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