New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 8606 link

Starred by 1577 users

Issue metadata

Status: Fixed
Closed: Aug 2014
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Windows
Pri: 3
Type: Feature

Sign in to add a comment

64 bit chrome on Windows

Reported by, Mar 10 2009

Issue description

I think the team should begin develop an official x86-64 version of Chrome
for Windows x64 (XP/Vista/7).

IE (official) and Firefox (unofficial) have it.

Java plugin has 64 bit version. Flash x64 is coming (already available for

Labels: -Type-Bug -Pri-2 Type-Feature Pri-3
Status: Available
Summary: 64 bit chrome
this mostly depends on getting v8 to be 64 bit. I can't find another open bug for 
this, although I would have thought there was one.
 Issue 16077  has been merged into this issue.
So, grabbing the Chromium source and compiling it as 64 bit will not work?

A 64 bit build would be cool to have.

Comment 4 by, Aug 3 2009

This applies to Linux, too.
It applies to Mac OS X as well. Indeed it would apply to any OS that supports 64-bit 
and Chromium; though I bet the Chromium team will focus primarily on Windows, Linux, 
and OS X.
 Issue 18398  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 7 by, Aug 13 2009

On 64 bit Ubuntu 9.04 the 'amd64' .deb package is unable to load many libraries.  A
native 64 bit build would be great.

/usr/lib/gio/modules/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/
/usr/lib/gio/modules/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/
/usr/lib/gio/modules/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/
dlopen failed when trying to open /home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/
/home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
dlopen failed when trying to open /home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/
/home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
dlopen failed when trying to open /home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/
/home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
dlopen failed when trying to open /opt/google/chrome/plugins/
/opt/google/chrome/plugins/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
dlopen failed when trying to open /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64

Comment 8 by, Aug 14 2009


This is because currently there is no native 64-bit chromium.  It is 32-bit version, 
thus the ELFCLASS64 trying to auto load plugins from mozilla which are 64-bit.

Comment 9 by, Aug 15 2009

 Issue 18608  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 10 by, Aug 18 2009

Hi Guys,
if someone is interested, I'm just uploaded on my site ( a 
fresh build of Linux Chrome 64bit (you can use all mozilla 64 bit plugins - flash 

My project is to create an automated build system and a .deb package (I mostly use a 
64bit experimental debian).

You can download it and unpack on /opt/google dir (it's a tar.bz2 package - tar jxvf 

I currently use it and all is OK.

Hope this is usefule for someone.

ansani's build is working fine on my Ubuntu 9.04 amd64 box.  And yes, Flash is working 
fine.  Thank you!

Comment 12 by, Aug 18 2009

Labels: Mstone-4 JavaScript

What distro you used to compile? Have dependencies from mozilla with .1d or .0d
extension on NSS libs.

Comment 14 by, Aug 19 2009


I used an experimental debian distro. NSS libs depends on .1d.

Comment 15 by, Aug 19 2009

Comment 16 by, Aug 19 2009

Just to note, Chrome Linux is building / running / passing tests on 64-bit.

There will be more work involved to have it running on Windows or Mac.
If you're on Ubuntu, the best bet is to use the Chromium Daily build PPA:

The description says:

"The amd64 package is no longer using ia32-libs. It contains *native* 64bit debs."

I tried it, and it works as advertised (Flash, etc.).  A nice touch in the package is 
the using of system-wide configuration in /etc/chromium-browser/default, where you can 
configure the "--enable-plugins" flag.
fyi this also works on Debian. I used the jaunty repo for Debian Sid and that worked 
like a charm.

Comment 19 by, Aug 31 2009

Google Chrome is native 64-bit on Linux as of 
FYI version is running fine on Slackware64 13. Need only creation of
symbolic links for NSS libs with .1d or .0d extensions and install GConf.
 Issue 20468  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 22 by Deleted ...@, Oct 8 2009

I added chromium ppa and use latest snapshot. Javatester screen withing chromium says 
using jre 12. Not sure if 64 or 32.  However, using jre 18 64 bit version on opera 
and ff on same ubuntu jaunty 64 machine. 

java version "1.6.0_18-ea"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_18-ea-b02)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 16.0-b09, mixed mode)

How can I get chromium to use this instead? Am being impatient but curious. Thanks.
Well, given Linux has native x64 builds now, what component is holding back Windows x64 
Blockedon: gyp:87
GYP work needs to be done first.

MSVS supports the concept of "platforms" (in its strictest MS-only sense) so you can 
have a platform(x86/x64/arm/ia64) x target(release/debug) matrix.

We just need to make the generator output the necessary .vcproj glue to generate the 
x64 build platform. That'd be nice but I don't have cycles to work on that.

Comment 25 by, Oct 13 2009

Labels: -Area-Misc -Mstone-4 Area-BrowserBackend Mstone-5
This is not a requirement for mstone-4.
Labels: -OS-All OS-Windows
Summary: 64 bit chrome on Windows

Comment 27 Deleted

Comment 28 Deleted

Comment 29 by, Dec 17 2009

Labels: -Area-BrowserBackend Area-Internals
Replacing labels:
   Area-BrowserBackend by Area-Internals

Comment 30 by, Jan 16 2010

This is indeed a serious problem. Chrome on Win7 64bit does not run smoothly. I have 
what most would consider a monster machine in terms of specs and people with dinosaurs 
are running Chrome faster than me simply because their OS's are 32bit. 

Comment 31 by, Jan 16 2010


There is likely some other issue with your computer. I have never heard anyone else 
complain about performance in a 64-bit OS, nor have I personally had any problems (Win 
7 64-bit).

Comment 32 by, Jan 22 2010

Labels: -Mstone-5 Mstone-X
Now, since there are the first beta of Flash 64bit, the time should have come nevertheless for chrome 64bit. When can one count finally on one build?

Comment 34 by, Sep 21 2010

"Comment 33 by heinrichwitt1961, Today (3 minutes ago)
Now, since there are the first beta of Flash 64bit, the time should have come nevertheless for chrome 64bit. When can one count finally on one build?

+1 for this. Also, would it use more ram then 32bit version?

Comment 35 by, Sep 21 2010

This is not the place for such discussions. 173 people are getting each and every reply to this topic. This place is for chromium developers.

Comment 36 by, Sep 21 2010

You are right. I'm sorry.

Comment 37 by, Sep 22 2010

I thought it might be worth mentioning the sandbox instability on Win 7 Enterprise 64-bit which I reported here in case it's related to this.
Anything new for this issue?
Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit
Cc: a deleted user
Labels: -JavaScript
laforge: what's the story for 64-bit Chrome for Windows?
The list from maruel@

- fix sandbox
- 64 bit flash
- most of the hard work as been done; especially porting v8
- build support
 Issue 87532  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 43 by, Sep 28 2011

Robert Shield also pointed out that there would be requirements on the installer and way we serve payloads.
 Issue 140203  has been merged into this issue.
Blockedon: -gyp:87 gyp:87
Status: Assigned
I may regret this.
Labels: Hotlist-Enterprise

Comment 48 by, Nov 5 2012

 Issue 159308  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 49 by, Nov 13 2012

 Issue 160438  has been merged into this issue.
Project Member

Comment 50 by, Nov 14 2012

The following revision refers to this bug:

r167578 | | 2012-11-14T02:48:04.306535Z

Changed paths:

roll gyp 1533:1534

r1534: ninja windows: Support x64 configuration platform
BUG= 8606 

Review URL:
You can try to build chrome 64 with ninja with the change above now:

  python build\gyp_chromium -Dtarget_arch=x64
  ninja -C out\Debug_x64 chrome

With "-Dtarget_arch=x64", ffmpeg errors out because it lacks a config header.

Without "-Dtarget_arch=x64" some subprojects (v8, codecs) will build in x86 (so the end result is probably going to be quite wrong). However, much of the rest standard chrome code (try to) build normally, so that would be a way to work through some of the random other compile errors that need to be fixed.
Blockedon: chromium:166496
Blocking: chromium:159629
Blockedon: -gyp:87

Comment 55 by, Dec 27 2012

Blockedon: chromium:167707
Blockedon: chromium:167951
Blockedon: chromium:168036 chromium:168039
Project Member

Comment 58 by, Jan 16 2013

The following revision refers to this bug:

r177264 | | 2013-01-16T23:34:04.434059Z

Changed paths:

Add numeric_cast for checked integral narrowing casts

In work on bringing up Windows x64, there are many places that need
to be safely narrowed to the types used for interacting with other
APIs (particularly when using containers). Rather than scatter these
CHECKs all over, numeric_cast<> CHECKs that the runtime value can be
safely converted to the target type.

BUG= 8606 , 167187,  166496 

Review URL:
Blockedon: chromium:173911
Blockedon: chromium:175301
Blockedon: chromium:175753
Blockedon: chromium:177779
Blockedon: chromium:179688
Labels: Arch-x86_64
Blockedon: chromium:179716
Blockedon: chromium:179717
Blockedon: chromium:180861
Project Member

Comment 67 by, Mar 10 2013

Labels: -Area-Internals Cr-Internals

Comment 68 by, Mar 13 2013

Labels: -Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit Restrict-AddIssueComment-EditIssue

Comment 69 by, Mar 28 2013

 Issue 224468  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 70 by, Apr 19 2013

 Issue 233740  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 71 by, May 10 2013

 Issue 239582  has been merged into this issue.
Blockedon: chromium:244605
Blockedon: chromium:255228
Blockedon: chromium:262193
Blockedon: chromium:268525
Labels: Proj-Win64
Blockedon: chromium:351920
Blockedon: -chromium:351920
Wrong one.
Blockedon: chromium:338706 chromium:338710
Blockedon: -chromium:167707 -chromium:167951 -chromium:179688
Thinning out some issues that have progressed far enough to not be blockers.
Blockedon: -chromium:179717
Blockedon: chromium:335192
Blockedon: chromium:360263
Blockedon: chromium:361720
Blockedon: chromium:364653

Comment 86 by, May 20 2014

Blockedon: chromium:375119
Status: Fixed
I'm going to call this fixed since we shipped to stable.

@wfh - do you want to look close out the three remaining blockers? Because you owned those and I'm pretty sure they're all fixed.

Sign in to add a comment