site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com Hi Terry, I wasn't suggesting you do that. I was suggesting that you build the 64 bit KEXT with the 10.6 SDK but everything else with the 10.4 SDK. Regards, -- Terry _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... On May 6, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Chris Suter wrote: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Terry Lambert <tlambert@apple.com> wrote: You really have to consider the consequences of doing something like building a 10.6-and-later-only 64 bit KEXT with 10.4 header files in scope instead of 10.6 header files in scope. Per this reference: <http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/samplecode/AppleSamplePCI/index.html

? The -isysroot isn't positionally bound to the -arch on a single line compiler invocation. This is why he got the multiple specification error in the first place. If he moves to building with XCode, it will handle everything behind the curtain for him (you and I both know what's behind that curtain), but without that, he will need to do the lipo, if he insists on using a Makefile and generating it via a command line make. As unthinkable as it is to not use XCode, I personally build a number of my KEXTs with command line tools as well. I avoid telling people about exactly how I do it because if I did that, someone would run GNU configure on something and it would statically decide that the source code byte order was equal to the byte order on the host machine, and their code would not end up working on the alternate byte order architecture(s). Tools which try to localize code for a single target architecture like that are bad news. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com