site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com On 22 Feb 2008, at 05:03, K. Noel Belcourt wrote: and those that have only two architectures: Jonas _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... I'm on an Intel Core 2 Duo with 10.4.11 and I'm trying to figure out the rational behind which /usr/lib libraries have four architectures: libpanel.5.4.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 4 architectures libpanel.5.4.dylib (for architecture ppc): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library ppc libpanel.5.4.dylib (for architecture ppc64): Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library ppc64 libpanel.5.4.dylib (for architecture i386): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library i386 libpanel.5.4.dylib (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64 libiconv.2.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures libiconv.2.dylib (for architecture ppc): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library ppc libiconv.2.dylib (for architecture i386): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library i386 On 10.4.11, very few libraries had 64 bit support (I'm surprised you actually found another one besides libSystem/libC and the libraries in the Accelerate.framework). An application I am trying to port requires the x86_64 architecture for libiconv, but it's not there (I'm building with the intel 10.1 compilers at the moment). Is this a non-issue if I move up to Leopard? Yes. On Leopard, everything but a couple of high level frameworks (which are documented as such) should have 64 bit support (and in particular, libiconv most certainly is shipped as a fat library with 64 bit support). This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com