Project: chromium Issues People Development process History Sign in
New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.
Starred by 1577 users
Status: Fixed
Owner:
Closed: Aug 2014
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Windows
Pri: 3
Type: Feature


Sign in to add a comment
64 bit chrome on Windows
Reported by subvert...@gmail.com, Mar 10 2009 Back to list
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
Linux).


 
Labels: -Type-Bug -Pri-2 Type-Feature Pri-3
Status: Available
Summary: 64 bit chrome (was: NULL)
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 dank@chromium.org, 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 ger...@gmail.com, 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/libgioremote-volume-monitor.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgioremote-volume-monitor.so
/usr/lib/gio/modules/libgiogconf.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgiogconf.so
/usr/lib/gio/modules/libgvfsdbus.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgvfsdbus.so
[31872:31877:173302809314:ERROR:/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/native_library_linux.cc(19)]
dlopen failed when trying to open /home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so:
/home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
[31872:31877:173302809398:ERROR:/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/native_library_linux.cc(19)]
dlopen failed when trying to open /home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so.old:
/home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so.old: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
[31872:31877:173302809442:ERROR:/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/native_library_linux.cc(19)]
dlopen failed when trying to open /home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/libnpjp2.so:
/home/gregc/.mozilla/plugins/libnpjp2.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
[31872:31877:173302809540:ERROR:/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/native_library_linux.cc(19)]
dlopen failed when trying to open /opt/google/chrome/plugins/libflashplayer.so:
/opt/google/chrome/plugins/libflashplayer.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
[31872:31877:173302809617:ERROR:/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/native_library_linux.cc(19)]
dlopen failed when trying to open /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libskypebuttons.so:
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libskypebuttons.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64

Comment 8 by gke...@gmail.com, Aug 14 2009
@gergnz

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 estade@chromium.org, Aug 15 2009
 Issue 18608  has been merged into this issue.
Comment 10 by ans...@gmail.com, Aug 18 2009
Hi Guys,
if someone is interested, I'm just uploaded on my site (http://ansani.it/chrome) a 
fresh build of Linux Chrome 64bit (you can use all mozilla 64 bit plugins - flash 
too!!).

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 
chrome64_....._.bz2).

I currently use it and all is OK.

Hope this is usefule for someone.

Regards,
Salvatore
ansani's build is working fine on my Ubuntu 9.04 amd64 box.  And yes, Flash is working 
fine.  Thank you!
Comment 12 by jon@chromium.org, Aug 18 2009
Labels: Mstone-4 JavaScript
@ansani

What distro you used to compile? Have dependencies from mozilla with .1d or .0d
extension on NSS libs.
Comment 14 by ans...@gmail.com, Aug 19 2009
@reinaldo

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

Comment 15 by wtc@chromium.org, Aug 19 2009
Comment 16 by deanm@chromium.org, Aug 19 2009
Just to note, Chrome Linux is building / running / passing tests on 64-bit.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxChromium64

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:

https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/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 mmoss@chromium.org, Aug 31 2009
Google Chrome is native 64-bit on Linux as of 4.0.203.2 
(http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2009/08/dev-channel-update-linux-true-64-
bit.html)
FYI version 4.0.203.2 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 
builds?
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 jon@chromium.org, 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 (was: NULL)
Comment 27 Deleted
Comment 28 Deleted
Comment 29 by oritm@chromium.org, Dec 17 2009
Labels: -Area-BrowserBackend Area-Internals
Replacing labels:
   Area-BrowserBackend by Area-Internals

Comment 30 by meok...@gmail.com, 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 jaysc...@gmail.com, Jan 16 2010
@meoknet

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 oritm@chromium.org, 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 phil...@gmail.com, 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 luc...@gmail.com, 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 phil...@gmail.com, Sep 21 2010
You are right. I'm sorry.
Comment 37 by doug...@gmail.com, 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. http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=50491
Anything new for this issue?
Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit
Cc: -jon@chromium.org -deanm%ch...@gtempaccount.com -mar...@chromium.org -wtc@chromium.org a deleted user
Labels: -JavaScript
laforge: what's the story for 64-bit Chrome for Windows?
Cc: mar...@chromium.org
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 laforge@google.com, Sep 28 2011
Robert Shield also pointed out that there would be requirements on the installer and way we serve payloads.
Cc: -mar...@chromium.org
 Issue 140203  has been merged into this issue.
Blockedon: -gyp:87 gyp:87
Owner: jsc...@chromium.org
Status: Assigned
I may regret this.
Cc: apps-tses-bugs@chromium.org
Labels: Hotlist-Enterprise
Comment 48 by dhw@chromium.org, Nov 5 2012
 Issue 159308  has been merged into this issue.
Comment 49 by dhw@chromium.org, Nov 13 2012
 Issue 160438  has been merged into this issue.
Project Member Comment 50 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Nov 14 2012
The following revision refers to this bug:
    http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=167578

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r167578 | scottmg@chromium.org | 2012-11-14T02:48:04.306535Z

Changed paths:
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/DEPS?r1=167578&r2=167577&pathrev=167578

roll gyp 1533:1534

r1534: ninja windows: Support x64 configuration platform

TBR=bradnelson@chromium.org
BUG= 8606 


Review URL: https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11293262
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cpu@chromium.org, Dec 27 2012
Blockedon: chromium:167707
Blockedon: chromium:167951
Blockedon: chromium:168036 chromium:168039
Project Member Comment 58 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Jan 16 2013
The following revision refers to this bug:
    http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=177264

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r177264 | scottmg@chromium.org | 2013-01-16T23:34:04.434059Z

Changed paths:
   A http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/safe_numerics_unittest.cc?r1=177264&r2=177263&pathrev=177264
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/base.gyp?r1=177264&r2=177263&pathrev=177264
   A http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/safe_numerics.h?r1=177264&r2=177263&pathrev=177264
   M http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/base.gypi?r1=177264&r2=177263&pathrev=177264
   A http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/base/safe_numerics_unittest.nc?r1=177264&r2=177263&pathrev=177264

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: https://codereview.chromium.org/11886037
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 bugdroid1@chromium.org, Mar 10 2013
Labels: -Area-Internals Cr-Internals
Comment 68 by laforge@google.com, Mar 13 2013
Labels: -Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit Restrict-AddIssueComment-EditIssue
Comment 69 by tkent@chromium.org, Mar 28 2013
 Issue 224468  has been merged into this issue.
Comment 70 by dhw@chromium.org, Apr 19 2013
 Issue 233740  has been merged into this issue.
Comment 71 by tkent@chromium.org, 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
Cc: dxie@chromium.org wfh@chromium.org
Comment 86 by wfh@chromium.org, 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