Michael Ash wrote:
> Again, why can't you just compile for one architecture? It's hard to
> imagine a situation where you need to create a universal binary for
every
> single build.
Well the project is in release stage, not development, every build
potentially is a release build (I'm working on a patch).
Building everything from scratch needs 4 hours on my system.
Running "configure" every time I need to switch arch is not that
comfortable, I could do it with two source trees, but then I'll need
also to keep them updated both and do tons of cvs update/commit from one
tree to the other...
>> - I know I can build only an arch and then "lipo" them together, but
>> this is not an option because I'll need two source trees to do that.
>
> You certainly don't. Build once, move the resulting binary somewhere
else,
> build again, lipo them together. This is fairly trivial to automate.
>
It's not trivial if you depend from the standard automake/autoconf build
system.
The best solution so far is to use a fake gcc script that runs two gccs
and lipo the objects together, I've already done something similar to
build an universal binary that works on 10.2 (I got the template from
the gcc-fat.sh available in the libsdl site).
Bye,
Gabry
|
