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

Issue metadata

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


Sign in to add a comment
link

Issue 8606: 64 bit chrome on Windows

Reported by subvert...@gmail.com, 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
Linux).
 

Comment 1 by est...@chromium.org, Jul 7 2009

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.

Comment 2 by est...@chromium.org, Jul 7 2009

 Issue 16077  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 3 by j.scru...@gmail.com, Jul 8 2009

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.

Comment 5 by pcxunlim...@gmail.com, Aug 3 2009

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.

Comment 6 by est...@chromium.org, Aug 4 2009

 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 est...@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

Comment 11 by arbran...@gmail.com, Aug 18 2009

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

Comment 13 by reinaldo...@gmail.com, Aug 19 2009

@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.

Comment 17 by arbran...@gmail.com, Aug 20 2009

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.

Comment 18 by dinyar.r...@gmail.com, Aug 20 2009

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)

Comment 20 by reinaldo...@gmail.com, Sep 2 2009

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.

Comment 21 by progame@chromium.org, Sep 3 2009

 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.

Comment 23 by cypher...@gmail.com, Oct 8 2009

Well, given Linux has native x64 builds now, what component is holding back Windows x64 
builds?

Comment 24 by mar...@chromium.org, Oct 8 2009

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.

Comment 26 by mar...@chromium.org, Oct 26 2009

Labels: -OS-All OS-Windows
Summary: 64 bit chrome on Windows

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

Comment 33 by heinrich...@gmail.com, Sep 21 2010

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

Comment 38 by jeremyeb...@gmail.com, Mar 9 2011

Anything new for this issue?

Comment 39 by akalin@chromium.org, Apr 7 2011

Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit

Comment 40 by thestig@chromium.org, Apr 7 2011

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?

Comment 41 by lafo...@chromium.org, Apr 7 2011

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

Comment 42 by stuartmorgan@chromium.org, Jun 29 2011

 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.

Comment 44 by mar...@chromium.org, Sep 28 2011

Cc: -mar...@chromium.org

Comment 45 by tkent@chromium.org, Aug 2 2012

 Issue 140203  has been merged into this issue.

Comment 46 by jsc...@chromium.org, Oct 2 2012

Blockedon: -gyp:87 gyp:87
Owner: jsc...@chromium.org
Status: Assigned
I may regret this.

Comment 47 by royans@chromium.org, Oct 10 2012

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.

Comment 50 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Nov 14 2012

Project Member
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 51 by scottmg@chromium.org, Nov 14 2012

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.

Comment 52 by jsc...@chromium.org, Dec 17 2012

Blockedon: chromium:166496

Comment 53 by jsc...@chromium.org, Dec 21 2012

Blocking: chromium:159629

Comment 54 by jsc...@chromium.org, Dec 21 2012

Blockedon: -gyp:87

Comment 55 by cpu@chromium.org, Dec 27 2012

Blockedon: chromium:167707

Comment 56 by rsleevi@chromium.org, Jan 2 2013

Blockedon: chromium:167951

Comment 57 by jsc...@chromium.org, Jan 2 2013

Comment 58 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Jan 16 2013

Project Member
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 59 by jsc...@chromium.org, Feb 3 2013

Blockedon: chromium:173911

Comment 60 by jsc...@chromium.org, Feb 9 2013

Blockedon: chromium:175301

Comment 61 by jsc...@chromium.org, Feb 12 2013

Blockedon: chromium:175753

Comment 62 by jsc...@chromium.org, Feb 23 2013

Blockedon: chromium:177779

Comment 63 by jsc...@chromium.org, Mar 3 2013

Blockedon: chromium:179688
Labels: Arch-x86_64

Comment 64 by jsc...@chromium.org, Mar 3 2013

Blockedon: chromium:179716

Comment 65 by jsc...@chromium.org, Mar 3 2013

Blockedon: chromium:179717

Comment 66 by jsc...@chromium.org, Mar 7 2013

Blockedon: chromium:180861

Comment 67 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Mar 10 2013

Project Member
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.

Comment 72 by jsc...@chromium.org, May 28 2013

Blockedon: chromium:244605

Comment 73 by jsc...@chromium.org, Jun 28 2013

Blockedon: chromium:255228

Comment 74 by jsc...@chromium.org, Jul 19 2013

Blockedon: chromium:262193

Comment 75 by jsc...@chromium.org, Aug 5 2013

Blockedon: chromium:268525

Comment 76 by jsc...@chromium.org, Jan 29 2014

Labels: Proj-Win64

Comment 77 by rsch...@chromium.org, Mar 12 2014

Blockedon: chromium:351920

Comment 78 by rsch...@chromium.org, Mar 12 2014

Blockedon: -chromium:351920
Wrong one.

Comment 79 by jsc...@chromium.org, Apr 14 2014

Comment 80 by jsc...@chromium.org, Apr 14 2014

Thinning out some issues that have progressed far enough to not be blockers.

Comment 81 by jsc...@chromium.org, Apr 14 2014

Blockedon: -chromium:179717

Comment 82 by jsc...@chromium.org, Apr 15 2014

Blockedon: chromium:335192

Comment 83 by jsc...@chromium.org, Apr 15 2014

Blockedon: chromium:360263

Comment 84 by jsc...@chromium.org, Apr 15 2014

Blockedon: chromium:361720

Comment 85 by jsc...@chromium.org, Apr 18 2014

Blockedon: chromium:364653
Cc: dxie@chromium.org wfh@chromium.org

Comment 86 by wfh@chromium.org, May 20 2014

Blockedon: chromium:375119

Comment 87 by jsc...@chromium.org, Aug 28 2014

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