Link error with build 3770

[naoki5]

That's weird. You can just pass --branch parameter and build whatever branch you want and you can even get more specific by specifying the cef/chromium commit.
Earlier branches always build fine that way.

Previously, I built the 3626 branch using the "MasterBuildQuickStart" procedure.
So I thought I could build a new branch in the same way, but I couldn't.

When I built using the "Automated Method" procedure, I specified the branch to build, "official build", and "proprietary codecs".
Since the script does the build, I don't know the detailed settings.

[linuxcef9]

So after running "Automated Method", you had libcef_dll_wrapper.lib, libcef.dll and libcef.lib as output and then you just used visual studio to consume them in your MFC app?

Or did you build libcef_dll_wrapper.lib too using visual studio?

Reason I am asking is, the automated method will build libcef_dll_Wrapper.lib which is linked to libc++. So your app should've linker errors if it links against the libcef_dll_wrapper.lib.
Only if you build libcef_dll_wrapper.lib using visual studio, it will work fine because then , your app and libcef_dll_wrapper.lib will use the same runtime.

[naoki5]

So after running "Automated Method", you had libcef_dll_wrapper.lib, libcef.dll and libcef.lib as output and then you just used visual studio to consume them in your MFC app?

Or did you build libcef_dll_wrapper.lib too using visual studio?

When I built using the "Automated Method" procedure, I got a file with the same structure as "Binary Distribution".
I expanded the compressed file, created a solution file using Cmake, and built "libcef_dll_wrapper.lib" using Visual Studio.

I agree with your idea that libc++ is the cause.
But I couldn't solve the problem.

[linuxcef9]

Got it, thanks.

I have one more question:

When you created build using "MasterBuildQuickStart" method, you'd have libcef_dll_wrapper.lib generated by build process. Is the size of that same as the one generated by Visual Studio?
For me, it's 14MB and other is whopping 76 MB! Would it be possible for you to check the size?

THanks.

[naoki5]

When you created build using "MasterBuildQuickStart" method, you'd have libcef_dll_wrapper.lib generated by build process. Is the size of that same as the one generated by Visual Studio?
For me, it's 14MB and other is whopping 76 MB! Would it be possible for you to check the size?

I'm sorry, I deleted the failed data.
However, as you say, I remember that the file sizes were quite different.

[linuxcef9]

When you created build using "MasterBuildQuickStart" method, you'd have libcef_dll_wrapper.lib generated by build process. Is the size of that same as the one generated by Visual Studio?
For me, it's 14MB and other is whopping 76 MB! Would it be possible for you to check the size?

I'm sorry, I deleted the failed data.
However, as you say, I remember that the file sizes were quite different.

No worries, thanks

[linuxcef9]

Sorry one more question - did you build debug version of cef ? I tried 2-3 times, but it gets stuck at last stage, when ninja invokes lld-link.exe to create libcef_static.lib. I launched procmon and saw that the ninja process isn't doing anything.

[naoki5]

Sorry one more question - did you build debug version of cef ? I tried 2-3 times, but it gets stuck at last stage, when ninja invokes lld-link.exe to create libcef_static.lib. I launched procmon and saw that the ninja process isn't doing anything.

I built the release version.
If the release version was built successfully, I was planning to build the debug version, but I did not build after all.

[magreenblatt]

The debug build hang issue is https://bitbucket.org/chromiumembedded/cef/issues/2679

[linuxcef9]

The debug build hang issue is https://bitbucket.org/chromiumembedded/cef/issues/2679

Hi marshall,

Thanks for replying and linking the issue.

What happens if is_official_build=true is set? My current builds do not use that flag. The documentation just says 'is_official_build is used for chromium branding' (https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/buildt ... m&g=0&l=37) and cs.chromium.org shows that it creates optimized build. Is there anything else that is impacted by adding that extra flag in GN_DEFINES?

(Edit : With is_official_build=true, the debug/gn_x64 build succeeds but it's not a real debug build per se, as it uses /MT flags. When is_official_build=true, is_debug=false but I want a build with is_debug=true so that it uses /Mtd flag)

I built the release version.
If the release version was built successfully, I was planning to build the debug version, but I did not build after all.

Okay thanks.