On 2015-12-13 23:16, katja wrote:
iven to both compiler and linker:
-arch i386 -arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-min=10.5One thing I noticed when building fat binaries: gcc doesn't define __i386__ or __x86_64__ which we use to conditionally compile bithacks.
?are you sure?
$ cc --version i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5666) (dot 3) $ cat > testarch.c <<EOL #include <stdio.h> int main() { #ifdef __i386__ printf("i386\n"); #endif #ifdef __x86_64__ printf("x86_64\n"); #endif return 0; } EOL $ make testarch CFLAGS="-arch i386 -arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-min=10.5" $ ./testarch x86_64 $ arch -i386 ./testarch i386 $ arch -x86_64 ./testarch x86_64 $
For this reason I'm now thinking that single-architecture should be the default in a generic build system, and fat binary an option.
dunno. i think that the default should be to just use the system-defaults (don't tell the compiler which architecture it should build for). this is driven by the experience with tehe template/Makefile: there are a number of externals out there that don't build on recent OSX, because the original template-Makefile would build for PowerPC and apple dropped out-of-the-box support for ppc.
otoh. it's obviously of utmost importance that any thus-compiled external loads correctly under a "default" Pd installation.
so for practical reasons it's probably best to use i386/x86_64 (and don't enable PPC by default)
fgmadr IOhannes