Re: Mac OS X Snow Leopard and 64-bit applications
Re: Mac OS X Snow Leopard and 64-bit applications
- Subject: Re: Mac OS X Snow Leopard and 64-bit applications
- From: Mo McRoberts <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:08:56 +0100
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 13:33, Andrew Gallatin<email@hidden> wrote:
> Mo McRoberts wrote:
>
>> therefore break. In contrast, most other x86_64 systems tend to be set
>> up such that x86_64 is reported as the “system” architecture (where
>> the kernel architecture is pretty incidental), and so you have a
>> triplet of, say, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Where most is linux? Nobody can really even agree if its
> amd64 or x86_64, much less what uname is supposed to say.
> For example, here's FreeBSD/amd64:
>
> % uname -a
> FreeBSD thor 8.0-BETA2 FreeBSD 8.0-BETA2 #0 r196400: Thu Aug 20 09:38:12 EDT
> 2009 gallatin@thor:/usr/src/sys/amd64/compile/THOR amd64
> % uname -p
> amd64
>
> Once you translate amd64 to x86_64, it behaves the way you'd expect.
> gcc defaults to producing 64-bit binaries.
Replace “FreeBSD” with “the BSDs [excepting Darwin]”
Indeed; you _can_ conclusively translate amd64 to x86_64. You can't do
the same for i386, because it’s ambiguous.
As you say, OpenSolaris is similarly irritating, though it produces
binaries by default matching the detected architecture so it’s not a
problem in practice.
If either of (a) the developer tools on Mac OS X produced i386
binaries by default (which wouldn’t affect Xcode, as it always
explicitly specifies) or (b) something was output (by uname, arch,
whatever) which told semi-recent versions of config.guess that the
default arch was x86_64 and not i386, the problem would go away as far
as I can see.
M.
--
http://nevali.net
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden