On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 07:11:51PM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > > The alternative to an installer would be a bindist,.. > > This seems of no advantage to me. So, if you're building installers, I'll use > those! (I like the certainty of HP is shipping precisely what GHC is!)
Maybe the best solution for GHC would be to build a bindist like normal, and then to have standalone script that can make an installer from a bindist. That way we could easily make both bindists and installers that we know are the same, so we'd have the best of both worlds. > > It'll be 10.6-only unless someone sends a patch to make the dtrace stuff > > work on 10.5. > > I suspect it will be acceptable. > > Question: Does the dtrace issue only affect the compiler itself, or also > things built with it? Or in otherwords, if one uses the 64-bit compiler to > produce 64-bit code on 10.6, will that resulting executable run on 10.5? The executable will work fine on 10.5 as far as I know. > Question: Am I right in thinking that GHC doesn't have support for producing > multi-architecture libraries and executables? You are right. > Or is there a sneaky way to do this by using -fvia-C and passing multiple > -arch args to gcc? Well, I imagine that if you do enough work yourself (e.g. calling the linker yourself etc) then it would be possible, but I don't know. > So, if I'm interpreting this all correctly, you'll be producing two GHC > installers for Mac OS X: > > 1) 32-bit compiler, libs & tools, producing 32-bit object code, runs on 10.5 > and 10.6 > 2) 64-bit compiler, libs & tools, producing 64-bit object code, runs only on > 10.6 Yes. > This means that HP will need to produce two such installers as well.... Good > thing I have the process almost entirely automated! Can you confirm that this > is the intent? I think that makes most sense at the moment. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
