Apple Silicon plan

I'm opening a tracking issue for our plan regarding apple silicon, including our dependencies.

It might be possible to source some development kits via the Foundation if we need them, as this was done in the past for our CI. Should we work in that direction?

We have a few high meta questions to answer: should we look to backport the support to 14.x or 12.x? Or are we targeting 15.x only?

I don't think there is a lot of time.

(If any person of Apple wants to join the discussion as you said you would this is a good spot :)).

I wouldn't imagine we need to make too many changes, they're just arm right?

This definitely should be connected to the Windows ARM64 support as well. We have support in for that, so I wouldn't expect there to be much left to do to support Apple Silicon but it's definitely something we need to audit and make sure we're fully supporting.

@jasnell

I'm not sure what is the problem we are trying to solve here.

For example, what are the potential problems and what might be needed to be done, except for extending the CI matrix?

Upd: ah, @jasnell comment from seconds ago explains it.

Specifically, among other things we need to verify...

The answer is likely yes to ~~all~~ most of these and we can likely check everything off but we should make sure.

I'm not sure what is the problem we are trying to solve here.

Logistics.

My current issue as the CPC representative is to check if we need to try to buy a few dev kits and give them to collaborators and/or add them to our CI. Without the devices, we can't do much.

There's probably some non-trivial work to do to teach GYP to generate ARM projects for XCode

@jasnell

Without test machines for the CI any support would be experimental at best.

@jasnell We'd also need to verify python and gyp in terms of build tools.

We have a few high meta questions to answer: should we look to backport the support to 14.x or 12.x? Or are we targeting 15.x only?

For backporting I think that really depends on what (if any) changes are required. I'm particularly concerned if we'll need to introduce branches in the gyp files to support ARM on macOS.

@jasnell

@jasnell We'd also need to verify python and gyp in terms of build tools.

Added to the checklist

My current issue as the CPC representative is to check if we need to try to buy a few dev kits and give them to collaborators and/or add them to our CI. Without the devices, we can't do much.

As part of this, let's explore also adding Windows ARM64 to the CI test matrix.

@AshCripps

@AshCripps can you check with our OSX infra donator to see if they have any plans to include ARM64 support.

(If any person of Apple wants to join the discussion as you said you would this is a good spot :)).

If this tweet I RT'd is legit (possibly from WWDC - I wasn't watching!) then they may already be looking at it: https://twitter.com/MarkVillacampa/status/1275200446764912643

My current issue as the CPC representative is to check if we need to try to buy a few dev kits and give them to collaborators and/or add them to our CI. Without the devices, we can't do much.

As part of this, let's explore also adding Windows ARM64 to the CI test matrix.

https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-windows-arm64/

History:

@richardlau

@richardlau ... yeah, I know that job has existed but as far as I know and I could be mistaken) it is not run as part of regular CI runs, correct?

@richardlau

@richardlau ... yeah, I know that job has existed but as far as I know and I could be mistaken) it is not run as part of regular CI runs, correct?

Correct. I think we even stopped producing unofficial builds for Windows ARM (AFAIK).

@mcollina

...if we need to try to buy a few dev kits and give them to collaborators and/or add them to our CI. Without the devices, we can't do much.

@mcollina ... likely a good idea, with priority going to members of the @nodejs/build team so that they can work out any possible issues getting things to compile and run.

I use nvm and node v15.3.0 build from source.

In my case, using nvm to build v15.3.0 from source still produced an x86 binary which would run via rosetta. (ref: nodejs/build#2474 (comment))

I used nvm to install 15.3.0 and it gave me arm64. You might have somehow run your shell (bash or zsh) or terminal app in Rosetta before.

Anyone have step-by-step instructions?

@playvici: #886 (comment)

I'd suggest locking this thread to collaborators and opening a separate issue over on https://github.com/nodejs/help/ for all the people that are just debugging their individual setups

@playvici
Here https://ported2m1.com/app/kcnaqU7k7CMDVmQWuvPa
I was able to install it through brew.

@playvici
Here https://ported2m1.com/app/kcnaqU7k7CMDVmQWuvPa
I was able to install it through brew.

do i need to uninstall x86 brew and reinstall as arm?

I really need node v12 in mac silicon

@playvici
Here https://ported2m1.com/app/kcnaqU7k7CMDVmQWuvPa
I was able to install it through brew.

do i need to uninstall x86 brew and reinstall as arm?

@playvici it depends on you. I keep both the versions.
I have added an alias for it, brewin

So, I use > brewin install... for x86 binaries
And > brew install... for M1 binaries

Add this to end of your zshrc/bashrc file after installing both versions.

# Brew Intel
alias brewin="arch -x86_64 /usr/local/bin/brew"

# Brew native
export PATH=/opt/homebrew/bin:$PATH

You can try installing something with brew install (for native M1), if that fails install it with brewin (Intel using Rosetta).

To install Node 15.x arm64 on M1, you need:

Install latest version of homebrew
/bin/bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://github.com/raw/Homebrew/install/HEAD/install.sh)"
brew install node
check version by node -p process.arch this should print arm64

As per #886 (comment) I went ahead and locked the issue to collaborators. Please open new issues in nodejs/help to discuss debugging individual setups.

@nodejs/build It would be good to have an update on the progress of getting an official build out. I could not find any easy-to-follow tracking issue.

@nodejs/tsc as we can see, this is a highly requested feature. I think we might want to flag it as a "Strategic Initialive".

V16 shipped with M1 support so closing :)

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Apple Silicon plan #886

48 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Apple Silicon plan #886

Description

Activity

devsnek commented on Jun 24, 2020

jasnell commented on Jun 24, 2020

ChALkeR commented on Jun 24, 2020

jasnell commented on Jun 24, 2020

mcollina commented on Jun 24, 2020

targos commented on Jun 24, 2020

richardlau commented on Jun 24, 2020

jasnell commented on Jun 24, 2020

jasnell commented on Jun 24, 2020

mhdawson commented on Jun 24, 2020

sxa commented on Jun 24, 2020

richardlau commented on Jun 24, 2020

jasnell commented on Jun 24, 2020

richardlau commented on Jun 24, 2020

jasnell commented on Jun 24, 2020

48 remaining items

ajonescodes commented on Dec 9, 2020

andreialecu commented on Dec 9, 2020

nschonni commented on Dec 9, 2020

AdityaChaudhary commented on Dec 14, 2020

ajonescodes commented on Dec 19, 2020

ElliotQi commented on Dec 20, 2020

AdityaChaudhary commented on Dec 22, 2020

LukaGiorgadze commented on Jan 4, 2021

mhdawson commented on Jan 4, 2021

mcollina commented on Jan 25, 2021

mhdawson commented on Apr 22, 2021

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions