error: use of undeclared identifier 'CLOCK_REALTIME' when building on OSX
Categories
(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)
Tracking
(firefox-esr78 unaffected, firefox83 unaffected, firefox84 unaffected, firefox85 fixed)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr78 | --- | unaffected |
firefox83 | --- | unaffected |
firefox84 | --- | unaffected |
firefox85 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: mccr8, Assigned: glandium)
References
(Regression)
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(1 file)
(deleted),
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details |
I'm unable to build Firefox locally on OSX. It looks like the code in question was added by bug 1678174.
Reporter | ||
Updated•4 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•4 years ago
|
||
Reverting the patch seems to fix it ( https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/491fa5186e7f )
Updated•4 years ago
|
Comment 2•4 years ago
|
||
POSIX is pretty unambiguous here:
All implementations shall support a
clock_id
ofCLOCK_REALTIME
as defined in<time.h>
.
But Apple's headers are weird (abridged for clarity):
#define __CLOCK_AVAILABILITY __OSX_AVAILABLE(10.12) …
…
typedef enum {
_CLOCK_REALTIME __CLOCK_AVAILABILITY = 0,
#define CLOCK_REALTIME _CLOCK_REALTIME
…
Maybe it doesn't include POSIX clock support if it thinks the target OS might be older than 10.12?
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•4 years ago
|
||
From some discussion on Element in developers with Glandium, it appears the problem is that I'm using the 10.11 SDK.
Assignee | ||
Updated•4 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•4 years ago
|
||
Bug 1680152 updated automation to use the 10.12 SDK, and shortly after,
bug 1678174 introduced a change that broke the build with the 10.11 SDK.
Considering we haven't actually supported running on macos 10.11 and
earlier since Firefox 79, and that still supporting building with the
10.11 SDK would mean adding and maintaining code that, in practice,
would never be used by users, I think it is fair at this point that we
just drop support for the 10.11 SDK entirely.
Comment 5•4 years ago
|
||
Could you send an announcement to mozilla.dev.platform about this? We've generally recommended everyone build with the 10.11 SDK, so lots of people will need to change their setup.
Comment 6•4 years ago
|
||
Furthermore, the following pieces of documentation need to be updated:
- https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/71621bfa47a371f2b1ccfd33c704913124afb933/docs/setup/macos_build.rst#153
- https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/71621bfa47a371f2b1ccfd33c704913124afb933/widget/cocoa/docs/macos-apis.md#66-69
- https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/71621bfa47a371f2b1ccfd33c704913124afb933/widget/cocoa/docs/sdks.md#22-29
Comment 7•4 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Markus Stange [:mstange] from comment #5)
Could you send an announcement to mozilla.dev.platform about this? We've generally recommended everyone build with the 10.11 SDK, so lots of people will need to change their setup.
Done already.
(In reply to Markus Stange [:mstange] from comment #6)
Furthermore, the following pieces of documentation need to be updated:
- https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/71621bfa47a371f2b1ccfd33c704913124afb933/docs/setup/macos_build.rst#153
- https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/71621bfa47a371f2b1ccfd33c704913124afb933/widget/cocoa/docs/macos-apis.md#66-69
- https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/71621bfa47a371f2b1ccfd33c704913124afb933/widget/cocoa/docs/sdks.md#22-29
Can you paste that in bug 1680441?
Comment 9•4 years ago
|
||
Thanks! Done.
Comment 10•4 years ago
|
||
Set release status flags based on info from the regressing bug 1678174
Comment 11•4 years ago
|
||
Comment 12•4 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Updated•4 years ago
|
Description
•