Are there any known problems running FPC apps with "Rosetta"?
What's the state of the Intel Mac native port?
Mattias
Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2006-05
intel Mac
7 messages · 4 people · –
- Jonas Maebe 3
- Marco van de Voort 2
- Giulio Bernardi 1
- Mattias Gaertner 1
Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription
Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.
Mattias Gaertner wroteAre there any known problems running FPC apps with "Rosetta"?
No, they work perfectly. Only the ppc compiler itself needed some changes (to tell the assembler and linker to assemble/link ppc instead of x86 code).
What's the state of the Intel Mac native port?
Also works perfectly :) Testsuite results are similar to Linux/i386.
Jonas
Show quoted text 13 lines
On 29 May 2006, at 19:39, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> Are there any known problems running FPC apps with "Rosetta"?
No, they work perfectly. Only the ppc compiler itself needed some changes
(to tell the assembler and linker to assemble/link ppc instead of x86
code).
> What's the state of the Intel Mac native port?
Also works perfectly :) Testsuite results are similar to Linux/i386.
Some time ago I tried a mac intel from a friend of mine... I slightly modified fpc 2.0.2 to make it accept a parameter -K which is similar of -k (that is, -k is "pass an option to the linker" , while -K is "pass an option to the assembler") and I added -K -arch ppc to fpc.cfg. Everything worked perfectly. I was thinking: -arch parameter is accepted even by pre-os x 10.4 as, so ppcppc could always call as with -arch ppc,
while ppc386 could always call as with -arch i386. Then it would be useful if fpc (not ppc*) could accept a -arch parameter, so that one can install both ppcppc and ppc386
and then decide for which target to compile.
This way it could also be easy to create a universal binary (IIRC ld or another command has an option to concatenate
a i386 executable and a ppc one to produce a universal binary...)
Giulio Bernardi wrote 10 lines
> Also works perfectly :) Testsuite results are similar to Linux/i386.
>
Some time ago I tried a mac intel from a friend of mine... I
slightly modified fpc 2.0.2 to make it accept a parameter -K
which is similar of -k (that is, -k is "pass an option to the
linker" , while -K is "pass an option to the assembler") and I
added -K -arch ppc to fpc.cfg. Everything worked perfectly.
I was thinking: -arch parameter is accepted even by pre-os x 10.4
as, so ppcppc could always call as with -arch ppc,
while ppc386 could always call as with -arch i386.
That is what the current svn versions of the compiler do.
Then it would be useful if fpc (not ppc*) could accept a -arch parameter, so that one can install both ppcppc and ppc386 and then decide for which target to compile.
Yes, I've also been thinking about that.
This way it could also be easy to create a universal binary (IIRC ld or another command has an option to concatenate a i386 executable and a ppc one to produce a universal binary...)
lipo
Jonas
Show quoted text 5 lines
> Then it would be useful if fpc (not ppc*) could accept a -arch
> parameter, so that one can install both ppcppc and ppc386
> and then decide for which target to compile.
Yes, I've also been thinking about that.
Already exists: -P<fpc arch designation>
Also exists -V<y> which calls ppc<arch>-<y>
which is useful for versioning, e.g. if one calls
assume ppc386-2.x.y is symlinked to /usr/local/lib/fpc/2.x.y/ppc386 (for multiple versions) and fpc.cfg is set up version independant ($FPCVERSION)
then
fpc -V2.x.y <other params>
can be used to select version.
Marco van de Voort wrote 5 lines
> Yes, I've also been thinking about that.
Already exists: -P<fpc arch designation>
Also exists -V<y> which calls ppc<arch>-<y>
Both seem to be missing in the fpc man page.
Jonas
Show quoted text 9 lines
On 30 mei 2006, at 10:45, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> Yes, I've also been thinking about that.
>
> Already exists: -P<fpc arch designation>
>
> Also exists -V<y> which calls ppc<arch>-<y>
Both seem to be missing in the fpc man page.
(btw:I think they were introduced in 1.9.4, so any recent compiler has them)
They are doc'ed in the buildfaq (1.2.5 in the current version, 1.6 deals with the corresponding fpc.cfg setup, though afaik there is now a CROSSCOMPILE define that makes this way easier).
I'll see if I can add them to the manpage tonight.