On 5/27/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Hans-Christoph Steiner</b> <<a href="mailto:hans@eds.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">hans@eds.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>On May 28, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Miller Puckette wrote:<br><br>> Yep... I thought 'imac' meant 'intel-mac' but I guess it doesn't.<br>><br>> Anyway, I think that if someone wants to publish an extern that works
<br>
> on either mips or i86 macs, they would have to include both<br>> "dylib"s...<br>> unless there's a way to make a fat dylib with binaries for both<br>> architectures.<br><br>Apple provides two mechanisms for this, one is fat binaries, which
<br>have been supported since NeXTSTEP 3.2 (Mac OS X 10.4 == NeXTSTEP<br>6.4), and the other is Rosetta, which runs PPC code in emulation.<br>NeXTSTEP/Apple uses gcc for everything, so building fat binaries is<br>just a matter of figuring out the gcc options.
</blockquote><div><br>A fat binary only solves the executable problem. The externals are just as much a headache to deal with as the Pd app - maybe more.<br><br>The catch with Rosetta is that you cannot load a PPC lib into an Intel application or vice versa. This is going to become slightly tricky to make sure people get the proper OSX externals that match their CPU type.
<br><br>I don't think fat dylibs exist -it would be a useful thing to have though. <br> </div><br></div><br>