[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       macports-dev
Subject:    Re: Universal and its many meanings
From:       "Wowfunhappy () gmail ! com" <wowfunhappy () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-02-27 15:55:02
Message-ID: 399E44EC-4E3D-47EF-9EA4-4B6A5AFB8CCB () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Feb 26, 2022, at 8:22 PM, Joshua Root <jmr@macports.org> wrote:

> On 2022-2-27 12:10 , Wowfunhappy@gmail.com wrote:
> > As I understand it, +universal is used to mean two different things in MacPorts:
> > 1. Install this port as a universal binary, which contains slices for multiple \
> > architectures. For the purposes of this message, I'm going to refer to these as \
> > "fat" binaries.
> 
> That is what +universal means.
> 
> > Although, on a completely separate note, I don't understand why many of these \
> > problems can't be trivially solved by a combination of the lipo and Apple's \
> > built-in translation layers (namely Rosetta 1/2 or x86_64's native 32bit \
> > support). If e.g. gcc7 is installable on both Tiger ppc and Tiger intel, and \
> > Tiger intel can run ppc binaries via rosetta, shouldn't it be possible to just \
> > (1) compile the code with gcc7_intel, (2) compile the code with gcc7_ppc, and (3) \
> > lipo the results together?
> 
> This is what the muniversal portgroup does, and if you read the code, you'll see \
> that it's anything but trivial. 
> - Josh

Well, that explains a lot! Thank you!


> > 2. Install this port with the ability to /create/ fat binaries with slices for \
> > multiple architectures. For the purposes of this message, I'm going to refer to \
> > these as "cross-compilers".
> 
> The gcc ports are unique in abusing the universal variant to mean that.

...should they maybe not do that, then? The varient could be named something else...=


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]