Op donderdag 18-06-2009 om 12:43 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Richard
does cctools now have real 64 bit support (ie. are they
trying to make the code 64 bit clean -- previously we had to compile
the whole thing with -m32)?
x86_64 support is one of the major features in the latest Mac OS X (Snow
Leopard) so I guess things have improved in that area. However, when
trying to build the odcctools on my x86_64 laptop a compile error
occurred. Help is appreciated to get the odcctools operational for
x86_64 Linux hosts. Support for x86_64 targets should be the next step.
> - Support for fat/universal binaries
> This requires multiple GCC compilers which are tied together by
> a small wrapper. This wrapper (which is called /usr/bin/gcc on
> regular Mac OS X environments) accepts arguments like
> '-arch i386 -arch ppc' and calls the corresponding compilers
> and uses lipo to merge the results together
What do we lose if we just build everything for, say, i386? PPC Macs
are a bit long in the tooth now aren't they?
Support for ppc environments could be dropped as only Intel-based
Macintosh'es were fabricated and sold in the last few years. However,
fat/universal binaries are still used nowadays containing i386 and
x86_64 binaries. I think we should aim for those two targets.
> - Can we regenerate the .dylib files which are bundled with
> from source code (which is a requirement for Fedora) so that we
> get something like w32api?
My thought for this one is can we rebuild these files just from a
table of the exported symbols? (ie. nm *.dylib)
Would that be legal enough? I've heard rumors on several places that
such acts are considered 'reverse engineering' which isn't
allowed/questionable. The only way to create something like this in a
fully legal way would be by using the public Apple documentation.
> - End user installers
> We need something like nsiswrapper for Mac OS X environments.
> On Mac OS X environments, all applications are bundled in one
> directory, a so called '.app'. This directory contains some
> standard files (containing application information, an icon, etc)
> and of course the application itself along with it's dependencies
> and data files. These .app folders can be packed in a .zip file
> or a .dmg file which end-users can open directly to run/install
> the application
Doesn't odcctools provide something to do this?
Not that I'm aware of. The odcctools only provide a set of tools which
offer the same kind of functionality as with binutils for Linux
environments (linker, assembler, etc).
Erik van Pienbroek