On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:07:33PM -0700, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 10/21/13 3:28 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >Note OS X 10.6 runs in 32-bit mode*by default*, even on *64-bit > >capable* hardware. That's the whole problem. There are only a few > >Macbook models that aren't 64-bit capable. There are much more OSX > >installs that run in 32-bit mode. > > But the "boat anchor" is still OSX 10.6, not the hardware? If we > drop 10.6, can we assume all 10.7 and 10.8 users are running in > 64-bit mode?
AFAIK, running 10.7+ in 32-bit mode is something you have to do manually at boot time. I guess nobody does that except for testing purpose. Also, afaik 10.7+ doesn't support 32-bit-only mac hardware. That leaves the problem of running 32-bit-only plugins. Do we have data on this? Are there still 32-bit-only plugins around, on 10.7+ systems? If there are and we still need to support them despite dropping 10.6 (which I'm not advocating, but i understand it'd be an option), I wonder if it would be possible, and how much work it would be, to make the plugin-container not use libxul at all, and just be a small shim doing ipc calls. But I really don't know what the plugin container currently does on its end that requires libxul code besides ipc. If that were possible, that would also be something useful for a possible future switch to gtk3, where plugins use gtk2 and both can't be loaded in the same process, so gtk2 plugin with gtk3 libxul doesn't work. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
