Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
xpcom.lib missing from Xulrunner 22 beta
379 views
Skip to first unread message
Jim Bretti
May 22, 2013, 11:39:11 AM5/22/13
to
I have a binary extension for Firefox (a toolbar) that currently links against xpcom.lib. This lib file (and several others) are missing from the current Xulrunner beta (22.0b2).
I'm currently not able to link my extension. Has something changed in Firefox 22 related to building binary xpcom components?
Thanks
Jim
I'm currently not able to link my extension. Has something changed in Firefox 22 related to building binary xpcom components?
Thanks
Jim
Jim Bretti
May 22, 2013, 12:35:44 PM5/22/13
to
Benjamin Smedberg
May 22, 2013, 12:58:58 PM5/22/13
to Jim Bretti, dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.org
On 5/22/2013 11:39 AM, Jim Bretti wrote:
> I have a binary extension for Firefox (a toolbar) that currently links against xpcom.lib. This lib file (and several others) are missing from the current Xulrunner beta (22.0b2).
>
> I'm currently not able to link my extension. Has something changed in Firefox 22 related to building binary xpcom components?
Yes. xpcom.dll no longer exists, and therefore neither does xpcom.lib.
> I have a binary extension for Firefox (a toolbar) that currently links against xpcom.lib. This lib file (and several others) are missing from the current Xulrunner beta (22.0b2).
>
> I'm currently not able to link my extension. Has something changed in Firefox 22 related to building binary xpcom components?
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=648407
You should be able to just link directly against xul.lib/xul.dll... this
change merely combined independent DLLs as a performance boost, it
didn't really change any of the functionality.
--BDS
Jim Bretti
May 22, 2013, 1:25:54 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:39:11 AM UTC-4, Jim Bretti wrote:
April Morone
May 22, 2013, 1:32:45 PM5/22/13
to Jim Bretti, dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.org
I knew it! I looked into doing a Firefox e@tension, at some point, and
noticed that, as well.
April
> _______________________________________________
> dev-extensions mailing list
> dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-extensions
>
noticed that, as well.
April
> dev-extensions mailing list
> dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-extensions
>
April Morone
May 22, 2013, 1:33:37 PM5/22/13
to Benjamin Smedberg, dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.org, Jim Bretti
Awesome. Ok. Good to know. Thank you.
> dev-extensions mailing list
> dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.**org <dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.org>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/dev-extensions<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-extensions>
>
On May 22, 2013 1:00 PM, "Benjamin Smedberg" <benj...@smedbergs.us> wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 11:39 AM, Jim Bretti wrote:
>
> On 5/22/2013 11:39 AM, Jim Bretti wrote:
>
> Yes. xpcom.dll no longer exists, and therefore neither does xpcom.lib. See
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/**show_bug.cgi?id=648407<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=648407>
>
> You should be able to just link directly against xul.lib/xul.dll... this
> change merely combined independent DLLs as a performance boost, it didn't
> really change any of the functionality.
>
> --BDS
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> You should be able to just link directly against xul.lib/xul.dll... this
> change merely combined independent DLLs as a performance boost, it didn't
> really change any of the functionality.
>
> --BDS
>
> dev-extensions mailing list
> dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.**org <dev-ext...@lists.mozilla.org>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/dev-extensions<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-extensions>
>
0 new messages