On 6 Mag, 16:35, "Thomas Harning Jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
> With this error, I suspect that the CXXFLAGS may have been ignored. > You can inspect what sort of arch was built by using 'file' on some of > the output files for cryptopp (.a probably won't reveal type). Looking for cryptopp files, I noticed that Crypto++ is installed into / usr/local/cryptopp as requested by my PREFIX. And when I compile an app that needs cryptopp I use the same path as prefix. But these are into /usr/local/lib: libgcrypt.11.5.2.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures libgcrypt.11.5.2.dylib (for architecture i386): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library i386 libgcrypt.11.5.2.dylib (for architecture ppc): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library ppc libgcrypt.11.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures libgcrypt.11.dylib (for architecture i386): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library i386 libgcrypt.11.dylib (for architecture ppc): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library ppc libgcrypt.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures libgcrypt.dylib (for architecture i386): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library i386 libgcrypt.dylib (for architecture ppc): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library ppc > One mechanism that would probably work out best, allowing ASM for the > intel code and no-asm for the ppc code... would be to build cryptopp > separately for the ppc and intel arches, then merge those together to > be a fat binary... don't recall exactly how the merge process goes. I will study for this! Thanks -- Mirko Grewing --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
