Skip to content

Conversation

@emrekultursay
Copy link

  1. In release builds: Build and ship Android x86_64 ABI instead of the Android armeabi-v7a ABI. This should have no impact on the CI execution time.

  2. In debug builds: Build the default set of ABIs, which is {arm64, x86_64} in build.gradle. This will build a second ABI, which will double the CI execution time of the AndroidDebug workflow (but it should take same time as the AndroidRelease workflow).

1. In release builds:
Build and ship Android x86_64 ABI instead of the Android ARM32 ABI.
This should have no impact on the CI execution time.

2. In debug builds:
Build the default set of ABIs, which is {arm64, x86_64} in
build.gradle. This will build a second ABI, which will double
the CI execution time of the AndroidDebug workflow (it should
take same time as the AndroidRelease workflow).
@emrekultursay emrekultursay requested a review from a team as a code owner January 9, 2026 23:30
@ci-tester-lunarg
Copy link
Collaborator

Author emrekultursay not on autobuild list. Waiting for curator authorization before starting CI build.

@bradgrantham-lunarg
Copy link
Contributor

bradgrantham-lunarg commented Jan 22, 2026

This changes what we build on GitHub CI for our release builds (which we haven't made frequently) and our SDK builds and not the GFXR capability. This doesn't change anything regarding our per-commit CI builds on GitHub. Do you need us to add this to our SDK builds or our CI? Can you tell us a little more about what problem this is intended to fix?

@emrekultursay
Copy link
Author

In a LunarG/Android meeting 1-2 months back, we had decided that we want to move our ABI focus from {arm64,arm32} to {arm64,x86_64}.

It looks like I'm missing the one for ci_build.yml. Let me add that one.

@emrekultursay
Copy link
Author

My overall goal is to be able to pick the Android output artifacts of GFXR from GitHub CI (both at per-commit, and at official release boundaries) and copy it elsewhere (e.g., Sherlock profiler).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants