We need several things in this case: 1.) We need a name for Darwin x86_64. Should it be osx-64? Any other suggestions? The name "intel" is not particularly suitable for i386 any more, but well ... 2.) This is for Taco: I would be grateful if we could have a switch similar to --ppc in luatex building script for: a) -arch ppc b) -arch i386 c) -arch x86_64 doing exactly the same thing as -ppc switch, just having a different argument for arch. I would leave it up to you to name it (maybe exactly the same way: -arch=ppc or -macarch=ppc) and I do not care about backward compatibility of the way to call the script. I'm really impressed - it's possible to compile ppc binaries on Snow Leopard, but not possible to execute them without additional software installed. This is what cross-compiling metapost for ppc returns me: checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: in `/Users/mojca/context/build-binaries/src/metapost/build': configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs. If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'. See `config.log' for more details. but I will try to get over it. I think that I just need to install additional software to support running ppc applications (or if Taco can give me a hint how to trick the building process to use host programs to execute some commands, but that's not of too big importance). I didn't know this would be the case, but I'm very grateful that Snow Leopard supports compiling for Tiger. One problem less (though we'll probably drop support for Tiger once the next version of OS comes out). 3.) We have never really started to use universal binaries, and maybe there's no need to do so. Some people were enthusiastic about universal binaries, but the truth is that Apple already dropped all the ppc stuff out of their OS and now makes i386+x86_64 fat binaries. If we do it (for example for TeX Live packages?), it might make sense to bundle all the three architectures together for the moment. 4.) I'll ask Hans to add x86_64 architecture to some places, I just need to change a few things first. Is the name osx-64 OK? Mojca

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 09:03, Taco Hoekwater wrote:

Mojca Miklavec wrote:

...

2.) This is for Taco: I would be grateful if we could have a switch similar to --ppc in luatex building script for:     a) -arch ppc     b) -arch i386     c) -arch x86_64 doing exactly the same thing as -ppc switch, just having a different argument for arch. I would leave it up to you to name it (maybe exactly the same way: -arch=ppc or -macarch=ppc) and I do not care about backward compatibility of the way to call the script.

No problem at all to add that, but I am not very good in shell script programming so a patch would be very welcome.

I can send you the patch, no problem, just one question for you before I continue. The weird thing is that: - I'm able to compile binaries for ppc - I'm not able to run them - ("uname" says the system is "i386", but generates "x86_64" binaries, but let's just ignore that fact for a moment ...) I should probably be able to run the ppc binaries by installing additional software (I didn't try that yet). However, if there exists some not-too-complicated way for cross-compilation, that would be great since it would By crosscompilation I mean: - if I use "gcc hello.c -o hello -arch ppc" this works perfectly well (it compiles, works on old ppc-s, but I'm not able to execute it) - metapost, luatex, pdftex, ... use some intermediate commands (like tangle maybe) that cannot be executed if they are built for ppc Since I know that you are cross-compiling for windows already: what's your estimate about complexity of cross-compilation on Mac? Where should I start looking? If it is too complicated, I'll just install the software, but I'm ready to invest a bit into "less-dependencies" and consequently having a slightly bigger set of volunteers that would be able to compile when I'm away. Mojca PS: thumbs up for the FreeBSD maintainers for the fastest response!

Mojca Miklavec wrote:

- I'm able to compile binaries for ppc

That *is* cross compilation, in a way.

- I'm not able to run them

Sure. I can't run win32 exes either, but I can build them easily enough.

- ("uname" says the system is "i386", but generates "x86_64" binaries, but let's just ignore that fact for a moment ...)

That is just a bit odd.

I should probably be able to run the ppc binaries by installing additional software (I didn't try that yet).

Probably. After all, both Tiger and (old) Leopard could run ppc files on intel (just slowly). But the problem is not with the actual compilation (as there was a succesful report already). Instead, it is about the build process.

By crosscompilation I mean: - if I use "gcc hello.c -o hello -arch ppc" this works perfectly well (it compiles, works on old ppc-s, but I'm not able to execute it) - metapost, luatex, pdftex, ... use some intermediate commands (like tangle maybe) that cannot be executed if they are built for ppc

Autoconf is supposed to fix that for you, but that does not work if you do only -arch=ppc. You'll need to have a CONFHOST in build.sh, like I do for windows. That tells 'configure' that it is cross-compiling, so it will set up the build process to fetch pre-installed executables for these commands instead of the ones it is currently building. It is quite straightforward, really, but you need to know the correct string to feed it (something like --host=powerpc-apple-darwin9 is likely) Generally, --host=<whatever> results in execution of <whatever>-gcc, <whatever>-ld, <whatever>-strip etc. Apple's gcc does that --arch thing, but probably the dev tools have also installed small stub scripts with the names configure expects. So, first action is to look for those. There is a tar.gz of those stubs at the bottom of this page, which explains basically what I wrote above (and possibly better): http://r.research.att.com/tools/ Best wishes, Taco

...

- ("uname" says the system is "i386", but generates "x86_64" binaries, but let's just ignore that fact for a moment ...)

That is just a bit odd.

This is not odd at all. uname says i386 means you are running snow leopard *kernel* in 32bit mode. but 32bit mode *kernel* can run 64 bit userland. (In tiger, 32 bits kernel can run 64bits unix tools, In Leopard, apple provide 32bits kernel which can execute 64bit user land executables, and 64bits Cocoa. In Snow Leopard, apple ships the kernel in universal binary format with 32bit intel and 64bit intel) You can boot into 64bits kernel, and uname will give you x86_64. Apple does not enable 64bits kernel by default since some 3rd party old kernel extensions might still need 32bits kernel.

...

I should probably be able to run the ppc binaries by installing additional software (I didn't try that yet).

Probably. After all, both Tiger and (old) Leopard could run ppc files on intel (just slowly). But the problem is not with the actual compilation (as there was a succesful report already). Instead, it is about the build process.

Yes, by Rosetta.

...

By crosscompilation I mean: - if I use "gcc hello.c -o hello -arch ppc" this works perfectly well (it compiles, works on old ppc-s, but I'm not able to execute it)

You should be able to execute ppc binaries on intel platform using rosetta.

...

- metapost, luatex, pdftex, ... use some intermediate commands (like tangle maybe) that cannot be executed if they are built for ppc

Autoconf is supposed to fix that for you, but that does not work if you do only -arch=ppc. You'll need to have a CONFHOST in build.sh, like I do for windows. That tells 'configure' that it is cross-compiling, so it will set up the build process to fetch pre-installed executables for these commands instead of the ones it is currently building. It is quite straightforward, really, but you need to know the correct string to feed it (something like --host=powerpc-apple-darwin9 is likely)

Generally, --host=<whatever> results in execution of <whatever>-gcc, <whatever>-ld, <whatever>-strip etc.

Apple's gcc does that --arch thing, but probably the dev tools have also installed small stub scripts with the names configure expects. So, first action is to look for those. There is a tar.gz of those stubs at the bottom of this page, which explains basically what I wrote above (and possibly better):

 http://r.research.att.com/tools/

Best wishes, Taco

_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~context Post to     : context@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~context More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 21:04, Yue Wang wrote:

Hey, how did you install your Snow Leopard.

It was preinstalled. But I'm looking for a screw-driver to replace the hard drive, so I'll have to install it anyway.

Default installation didn't install Rosetta.

I know about Rosetta, but I also thought that if we figure out how to "properly" cross-compile, it might be a bit easier to also compile 64-bit binaries on 32-bit machines etc.

Xcode support the past two versions of OS X. for example, Xcode in 10.5 should support 10.4 and 10.5, and 10.3 in optional install.

I didn't know that. I only had support for 10.4 on 10.5, so I was surprised to learn that 10.4 was still available.

But in fact that is not a big problem, these backward supports are usually for Cocoa APIs (For example, each version of OS X deprecates a lot of Cocoa APIs, but you are still able to compile the program and run them in old versions since for most of the time they provide binary compatibility). For traditional ANSI or POSIX C programs like LuaTeX, I think it won't be a problem.

I remember that I compiled TeX binaries on Leopard and people started complaining that they were not able to use them on Tiger. Do you have any idea how to cross-compile XeTeX (with export MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4)?

...

3.) We have never really started to use universal binaries, and maybe there's no need to do so. Some people were enthusiastic about universal binaries, but the truth is that Apple already dropped all the ppc stuff out of their OS and now makes i386+x86_64 fat binaries.

I think either way is ok.  fat binaries are good, but they are fat. I can compile ppc+i386+x86_64 binaries without any problems.

I have already committed the luatex for i386. Feel free to commit the binary for ppc and 64-bit (that need a new directory structure first), but make sure to use export MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4 The building script needs to be adapted anyway. (Some scripts in SVN have been modified already, but not all of them yet.) Mojca

Mojca Miklavec wrote:

So that's in contradiction with Yue's observation that 64-bit LuaTeX runs slower. (Though it may be biased. I wouldn't be surprised if Mac OS X tries to run some kind of "virtualizer" for 32-bit binaries.)

on linux 64 bit binaries also run faster than 32 bit ones Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------