Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Support and discussions for the x86/x64 Linux version of Pale Moon.

Moderator: trava90

User avatar
moonbat
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1571
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by moonbat » 2020-05-08, 12:25

Pentium4User wrote:
2020-05-08, 09:45
These are often still used and can't be easily replaced due to missing money.
How expensive is a fifth hand 64bit computer these days? Even something a decade old is better than this antiquated early 2000s stuff.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Linux Mint 19.3 Xfce x64 on HP i5 laptop with 12 GB RAM, always latest versions of PM & Basilisk unless specified.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27008
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by Moonchild » 2020-05-08, 12:40

It really won't cost you more than $50 to get something usable, maybe even half-decent.
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 619
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-05-08, 18:00

Working on 28.9.3 now. <crosses fingers>

32 bit also is relevant for current ARM builds, such as for the Pi, which I'm now doing in the repo, so it's not that simple. $50 is also quite a bit of cash in many poorer countries where many people may rely on older computers, so I try to provide 32-bit packages if it doesn't take heroic efforts to do so.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 7326
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Binary Outcast

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-05-08, 18:06

Aren't all Pis 64bit now?

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 619
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-05-08, 18:29

Maybe the Pi 4...but Raspian is still 32-bit.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27008
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by Moonchild » 2020-05-08, 20:45

Also keep in mind that our support for ARM-64 is worse than ARM-32 when it comes to JavaScript JITing. We have no IonMonkey support for ARM-64, for example.
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 619
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-05-09, 03:43

With today's builds for MX Linux on my laptop, I was able to streamline the linker flags a little:

Code: Select all

ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O2 -w -Wl,--no-keep-memory,--reduce-memory-overhead"
so I'll add those to the OBS builds with the next version

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 7326
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Binary Outcast

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-05-09, 06:10

I'll make a note about that in the linux build instructions on the developer site sooner or later.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 619
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-06-07, 03:03

28.10.0 in now in the repo for 32 and 64-bit Intel/AMD and ARM64 architectures.

All 32-bit ARM (armhf) builds are now failing with this error, though:

Code: Select all

[10553s] In file included from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/gc/StoreBuffer.h:17,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/gc/Barrier.h:13,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/jsatom.h:14,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/vm/Xdr.h:13,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/vm/Xdr.cpp:7,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/js/src/Unified_cpp_js_src36.cpp:2:
[10553s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/ds/LifoAlloc.h: In instantiation of 'T* js::LifoAllocPolicy<fb>::maybe_pod_calloc(size_t) [with T = js::detail::HashTableEntry<js::HashMapEntry<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int> >; js::Fallibility fb = js::Fallible; size_t = unsigned int]':
[10553s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/HashTable.h:1249:63:   required from 'static js::detail::HashTable<T, HashPolicy, AllocPolicy>::Entry* js::detail::HashTable<T, HashPolicy, AllocPolicy>::createTable(AllocPolicy&, uint32_t, js::detail::HashTable<T, HashPolicy, AllocPolicy>::FailureBehavior) [with T = js::HashMapEntry<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int>; HashPolicy = js::HashMap<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int, js::wasm::AstSig, js::LifoAllocPolicy<js::Fallible> >::MapHashPolicy; AllocPolicy = js::LifoAllocPolicy<js::Fallible>; js::detail::HashTable<T, HashPolicy, AllocPolicy>::Entry = js::detail::HashTableEntry<js::HashMapEntry<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int> >; uint32_t = unsigned int]'
[10553s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/HashTable.h:1317:28:   required from 'bool js::detail::HashTable<T, HashPolicy, AllocPolicy>::init(uint32_t) [with T = js::HashMapEntry<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int>; HashPolicy = js::HashMap<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int, js::wasm::AstSig, js::LifoAllocPolicy<js::Fallible> >::MapHashPolicy; AllocPolicy = js::LifoAllocPolicy<js::Fallible>; uint32_t = unsigned int]'
[10553s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/HashTable.h:92:69:   required from 'bool js::HashMap<Key, Value, HashPolicy, AllocPolicy>::init(uint32_t) [with Key = js::wasm::AstSig*; Value = unsigned int; HashPolicy = js::wasm::AstSig; AllocPolicy = js::LifoAllocPolicy<js::Fallible>; uint32_t = unsigned int]'
[10553s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/wasm/WasmAST.h:802:29:   required from here
[10553s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/ds/LifoAlloc.h:616:15: warning: 'void* memset(void*, int, size_t)' clearing an object of type 'class js::detail::HashTableEntry<js::HashMapEntry<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int> >' with no trivial copy-assignment [-Wclass-memaccess]
[10553s]   616 |         memset(p, 0, numElems * sizeof(T));
[10553s]       |         ~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[10553s] In file included from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/TracingAPI.h:12,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/GCPolicyAPI.h:46,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/RootingAPI.h:23,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/CallArgs.h:73,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/CallNonGenericMethod.h:12,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/NamespaceImports.h:15,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/gc/Barrier.h:10,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/jsatom.h:14,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/vm/Xdr.h:13,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/vm/Xdr.cpp:7,
[10553s]                  from /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/js/src/Unified_cpp_js_src36.cpp:2:
[10553s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/obj-armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/dist/include/js/HashTable.h:788:7: note: 'class js::detail::HashTableEntry<js::HashMapEntry<js::wasm::AstSig*, unsigned int> >' declared here
[10553s]   788 | class HashTableEntry
[10553s]       |       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[10555s] make[6]: *** [/usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/config/rules.mk:886: Unified_cpp_js_src36.o] Error 1

User avatar
adesh
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1039
Joined: 2017-06-06, 07:38

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by adesh » 2020-06-07, 12:46

Off-topic:
You pasted good amount of log output but forgot to include the actual error message.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 619
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-06-08, 03:44

Hmm--it's tough to pick out. Here's another of the failed arm builds, for Debian Buster: https://build.opensuse.org/public/build ... emoon/_log

Do you think it's this line, which appears several times in the parallel build?

Code: Select all

[13526s] /usr/src/packages/BUILD/platform/js/src/wasm/WasmBaselineCompile.cpp:3504:25: error: 'ins' was not declared in this scope

User avatar
adesh
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1039
Joined: 2017-06-06, 07:38

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by adesh » 2020-06-08, 09:55

Issue got introduced with MIPS support.

Error is due to a typo in this commit:
https://github.com/MoonchildProductions ... b9adeR3394

Replace `IsUnaligned(ins->access())` with `IsUnaligned(access)` in the affected file and retry the build. It has to be fixed in the code though.

EDIT:
I've corrected the typo in my branch here: https://github.com/adeshkp/UXP/tree/fix-arm-build
Can you try the ARM build on this branch? Let us know if it succeeds so it can be merged into platform.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 619
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-06-09, 04:42

I'll make a patch to change the code and see what happens in the OBS.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 619
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-06-10, 02:57

That fixed it, so go ahead and push the patch.

https://build.opensuse.org/package/show ... r/palemoon

Post Reply