This is tracking bug for building Windows x64 binary.

Although I have fixed upstream version of liboggplay, we cannot build current code of liboggplay into m-c for x64. More detail is http://git.xiph.org/?p=liboggplay.git;a=commit;h=b876b35e854ab45dcfb61114d0348b5d34819983 and https://trac.annodex.net/ticket/498. Also, liboggplay will be removed due to some reasons. So I add it to track bug.

Hi, If I wanted to build 64 bit builds for Windows on our current build machines; How could I do it? I assume I can't build the 64 bit build on a 32 bit machine; correct? Is this the page I should follow if I want to build it on my computer? http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/How_To_Build_Windows_x64_Build NOTE: Our build machines run Windows 2003.

Armenzg, you need x64 version of Windows. Unfortunately, this don't support x64 build on 32-bit Windows. Because we need a hack like WinCE build. (we need more wrapper tools to support cross compile). If you use Windows XP / 2003 x64, you need more hack for mozilla-build (See Bug 506323). I recommend that you use Windows Vista or 2008 x64 version. To build this, you need --host and --target in mozconfig. And you have to use start-msvc8-x64.bat for VC2005SP1. *-x64.bat is to build x64 binaries.

Thanks Makoto. Discarded: * cross compilation from 32 bit machine (at this point) OSes to produce 64 bit builds: * Vista * 2008 x64 version * XP/2003 x64. Bug 506323. What about Windows 7 64 bit? Can we build in there? I have to choose an OS that will meet our builds needs (OPSI) and see what works for IT. Is this the only thing needed on XP/2003x64 to make MozillaBuild be able to create 64 bit builds? > Also, if you use Windows XP x64 or 2003 x64, call \windows\syswow64\cmd.exe > at first. MSYS only runs on 32-bit cmd.exe. Is this the mozconfig needed? > . $topsrcdir/browser/config/mozconfig > > mk_add_options MOZ_OBJDIR=@TOPSRCDIR@/../objdir > ac_add_options --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 > ac_add_options --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 > ac_add_options --disable-ogg What can you let me know about the following problem? How often does it happen? Does this happen on only some of the OSes? Is there a bug filed for this? > bash not response? > > When you run bash on some x64 environment, ssh-agent will hang. So if you hang > bash, you need remove c:\mozilla-build\msys\etc\profile.d\profile-sshagent.sh.

(In reply to comment #5) > What about Windows 7 64 bit? Can we build in there? I've produced 64-bit builds on win7 professional 64-bit > What can you let me know about the following problem? How often does it happen? > Does this happen on only some of the OSes? Is there a bug filed for this? I've never hit that.

> What can you let me know about the following problem? How often does it happen? > Does this happen on only some of the OSes? Is there a bug filed for this? This is for old version (1.2 or 1.3) of mozilla-build. Please ignore this if using latest version.

Installer seems to be too 32-bit still. firefox-3.6.3.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe by default installs to "C:\Program Files (x86)\Namoroka (64-bit)\", should be "C:\Program Files\Namoroka (64-bit)\".

where can i find the build?

(In reply to comment #10) > where can i find the build? A. I will soon be producing the builds every night. I will be doing an announcement in http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/topics very soon.

Hi Makoto Kato , I am trying to create Geck 2.0 for 64 bit sytems.For that ,I tried to build firefox code on 32 bit vista.In Mozconfig, I am wrting "enable application = xulrunner".It indeed gives errors related to WinCE. Also I am getting following error: configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'. I have decided to build the source code on 64 bit Vista.Besides I will install windows 7 SDk ,Visual studio 2008 on that machine.Will it be fine to proceed with this?

Hi Makoto Kato , I am trying to create Geck 2.0 for 64 bit sytems.For that ,I tried to build firefox code on 32 bit vista.In Mozconfig, I am wrting "enable application = xulrunner".It indeed gives errors related to WinCE. Also I am getting following error: configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'. I have decided to build the source code on 64 bit Vista.Besides I will install windows 7 SDk ,Visual studio 2008 on that machine.Will it be fine to proceed with this?

(In reply to comment #13) > Hi Makoto Kato , > > I am trying to create Geck 2.0 for 64 bit sytems.For that ,I tried to build > firefox code on 32 bit vista.In Mozconfig, I am wrting "enable application = > xulrunner".It indeed gives errors related to WinCE. > > Also I am getting following error: > configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs > If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'. > This is what I use for the Firefox builds: > ac_add_options --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 > ac_add_options --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 http://hg.mozilla.org/users/armenzg_mozilla.com/buildbot-configs/file/tip/mozilla2/win64/mozilla-central/nightly/mozconfig > I have decided to build the source code on 64 bit Vista.Besides I will install > windows 7 SDk ,Visual studio 2008 on that machine.Will it be fine to proceed > with this? That is the same setting that I use.

The following page contains a build of XulRunner 10 for Windows 64 bits: http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Download As an Eclipse/SWT developer, I'd like to embed a version of XulRunner in my RCP app that would work with Windows 64 bits.

Depends on: bug #1173846

Any news of this bug? Thunderbird has not, it will be resolved in 45.1 ? (it is not in 45.0)

I think we can resolve this bug win64 tracking bug as fixed. 64-bit is the stub installer's default as of Firefox 55 (bug 1340936) and we have begun migrating eligible 32-bit Firefox 56.0 users to 64-bit 56.0.1 (bug 1274659). \o/

(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #19) > I think we can resolve this bug win64 tracking bug as fixed. 64-bit is the > stub installer's default as of Firefox 55 (bug 1340936) and we have begun > migrating eligible 32-bit Firefox 56.0 users to 64-bit 56.0.1 (bug 1274659). > \o/ What about "Thunderbird" and "Seamonkey"?