From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-10 15:53:13
Foster Brereton wrote:
>> I'm not sure I would consider fat as an architecture. I would think it's
>> a different target type. After all it's created as a post process of
>> building the x86 and power architecture binaries. Right?
> Probably, but if that's the case MacOS X can be stealthy about it.
> There are utilities one can use to make fat binaries as a
> post-compilation or post-linking step, but we don't use any of them.
> Based on the build logs this would seem to be the way XCode builds
> universal binaries.
> However our use of bjam takes a different route. On a given call to
> gcc I can specify both -arch i386 and -arch ppc, and the object file
> that is built will contain the binaries for both. In this case the
> linking phase, too, "just works".
I must say that's rather refreshing. Most of my fat target experience
was with the painful Carbon 68K+PPC days. So I'm glad to see some
I guess the ideal then would be to allow setting multiple architecture
options at once. That would map directly to the situation. I don't it's
currently easily possible, but I think it would be worth making changes
to support such feature usage.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk