[Context] One more arch (OS X, snow leopard)

Yue Wang yuleopen at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 21:04:47 CET 2009

Hi, Mojca:

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Mojca Miklavec
<mojca.miklavec.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 ...

that's ok.

> 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:

Hey, how did you install your Snow Leopard. Default installation
didn't install Rosetta. But you can find them in the install DVD. When
you run the Optional Install, you can add this package in. After doing
that, you should be able to run ppc binaries by simulation.

> 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).

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. 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.

> 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.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~context
> Post to     : context at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~context
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen shot 2009-10-30 at 3.54.59 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 41988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.contextgarden.net/pipermail/binary-builders/attachments/20091030/9a31576c/attachment.png>

More information about the binary-builders mailing list