Re: how a universal package/bundle/binary looks on disk
Re: how a universal package/bundle/binary looks on disk
- Subject: Re: how a universal package/bundle/binary looks on disk
- From: "Justin C. Walker" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:59:07 -0800
On Mar 28, 2006, at 18:38 , Mark Sanvitale wrote:
In doing some experiments with building a project for multiple
architectures (i.e. universal binary), I had this feeling that
something had changed. Using Xcode 2.2 and the "10.4u" SDK, I
built a simple app (using Carbon) for both ppc and i386
architectures. The resulting application package contained a
single executable file ("Unix Executable File (Universal)") inside
the "MacOS" directory.
For some reason, I expected the app package to contain two
directories for the two different architectures with each directory
containing one, arch-specific executable. Did things ever used to
be this way (and, thus, explain my feelings of change)?
Not with Mac OS X or NeXTStep (from which Mac OS X is descended).
Multiple architectures have always been handled with "fat" (now
'universal') binaries that include the per-architecture executables
in a single file.
extra credit: if my brain has done broke, what can be done?
It may be too late. Maybe you can trade it in on a later model.
Regards,
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
--------
If you're not confused,
You're not paying attention
--------
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden