third_party/protobuf should build on the x86_64 architecture

third_party/protobuf should build on the x86_64 architecture.


BUG=143907

[Cătălin Badea, 2012-08-21 14:59:17]

Please review this patch.

[Mark Mentovai, 2012-08-21 15:22:04]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10834431/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/s...
File third_party/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomicops.h (left):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10834431/diff/1/third_party/protobuf/s...
third_party/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomicops.h:74: typedef intptr_t
Atomic64;
You are changing this for all platforms, but I think your patch aims to only be
scoped to Mac.

[Cătălin Badea, 2012-08-22 11:23:48]

I have uploaded a new patch set. The changes now affect only 64-bit mac builds.
Should this issue be addressed upstream, in the protobuf repo?

[Mark Mentovai, 2012-08-22 13:11:26]

If you can get this fixed in the upstream first, that would absolutely be
preferable. https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10834431/diff/4001/third_party/protobu...
File third_party/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomicops.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10834431/diff/4001/third_party/protobu...
third_party/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomicops.h:69: #if
defined(GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OS_APPLE) || defined(GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OS_NACL)
The NaCl-64 case has a comment explaining why intptr_t is not appropriate. The
Mac-64 case should too.

[Cătălin Badea, 2012-08-23 09:22:41]

I've added comments and I will post the patch on protobuf's project page.

[Cătălin Badea, 2012-08-24 15:12:26]

I opened an issue with this patch on protobuf's project page. They have yet to
respond.
link: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=412

[Cătălin Badea, 2012-08-30 09:20:12]

On 2012/08/24 15:12:26, Catalin Badea wrote:
> I opened an issue with this patch on protobuf's project page. They have yet to
> respond.
> link: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=412

I didn't get any feedback from the protobuf maintainers. They're google group
doesn't seem very active either. Could you help me ping the right people,
please?

[Mark Mentovai, 2012-08-30 21:39:36]

Have you brought it up on the protobuf mailing list/discussion group?

http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:20 AM, <badea@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 2012/08/24 15:12:26, Catalin Badea wrote:
>
>> I opened an issue with this patch on protobuf's project page. They have
>> yet to
>> respond.
>> link:
http://code.google.com/p/**protobuf/issues/detail?id=412<http://code.google.c...
>>
>
> I didn't get any feedback from the protobuf maintainers. They're google
> group
> doesn't seem very active either. Could you help me ping the right people,
> please?
>
>
>
>
https://chromiumcodereview.**appspot.com/10834431/<https://chromiumcodereview...
>

[Mark Mentovai, 2012-08-30 21:39:36]

Have you brought it up on the protobuf mailing list/discussion group?

http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:20 AM, <badea@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 2012/08/24 15:12:26, Catalin Badea wrote:
>
>> I opened an issue with this patch on protobuf's project page. They have
>> yet to
>> respond.
>> link:
http://code.google.com/p/**protobuf/issues/detail?id=412<http://code.google.c...
>>
>
> I didn't get any feedback from the protobuf maintainers. They're google
> group
> doesn't seem very active either. Could you help me ping the right people,
> please?
>
>
>
>
https://chromiumcodereview.**appspot.com/10834431/<https://chromiumcodereview...
>

[Mark Mentovai, 2012-08-30 21:42:51]

Ah, I see you have.

I’d run “svn log
http://protobuf.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomicops.h”
and write to the person that appears to be the responsible party. Looks
like the file’s had recent activity, so that ought to do it.


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Mark Mentovai <mark@chromium.org> wrote:

> Have you brought it up on the protobuf mailing list/discussion group?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:20 AM, <badea@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012/08/24 15:12:26, Catalin Badea wrote:
>>
>>> I opened an issue with this patch on protobuf's project page. They have
>>> yet to
>>> respond.
>>> link:
http://code.google.com/p/**protobuf/issues/detail?id=412<http://code.google.c...
>>>
>>
>> I didn't get any feedback from the protobuf maintainers. They're google
>> group
>> doesn't seem very active either. Could you help me ping the right people,
>> please?
>>
>>
>>
>>
https://chromiumcodereview.**appspot.com/10834431/<https://chromiumcodereview...
>>
>
>

[Mark Mentovai, 2012-08-30 21:42:51]

Ah, I see you have.

I’d run “svn log
http://protobuf.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomicops.h”
and write to the person that appears to be the responsible party. Looks
like the file’s had recent activity, so that ought to do it.


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Mark Mentovai <mark@chromium.org> wrote:

> Have you brought it up on the protobuf mailing list/discussion group?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:20 AM, <badea@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012/08/24 15:12:26, Catalin Badea wrote:
>>
>>> I opened an issue with this patch on protobuf's project page. They have
>>> yet to
>>> respond.
>>> link:
http://code.google.com/p/**protobuf/issues/detail?id=412<http://code.google.c...
>>>
>>
>> I didn't get any feedback from the protobuf maintainers. They're google
>> group
>> doesn't seem very active either. Could you help me ping the right people,
>> please?
>>
>>
>>
>>
https://chromiumcodereview.**appspot.com/10834431/<https://chromiumcodereview...
>>
>
>