after a little digging, it looks like the configure script is always adding a 
-m32 to the CFLAGS section of the rules.mk file (line 44)

this would seem to be a bug to me, but I haven't yet figured out where it is 
pulling this value from…
apr-1.4.5 seems to work fine



Grady Player
[email protected]
[email protected]
801 548 1371




On Feb 7, 2012, at 7:16 AM, grady player wrote:

> The reason is that having the concept of a fat binary (Universal was used to 
> denote PPC/i386 fat) doesn't mean that everything compiled on a modern mac 
> will contain both 32bit and 64 bit code…
> in fact apr-util build from configure && make all && make install seems to 
> always build 32 bit code….
> 
> this is problematic if you are trying to build a static library that is used 
> to link a 32/64 (fat) application.
> the output from lipo:
> 
> input file libaprutil-1.a is not a fat file
> Non-fat file: libaprutil-1.a is architecture: i386
> 
> Grady Player
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> 801 548 1371
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> 
>> On 6 Feb 2012, at 23:50, grady player <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am currently building a 32/64 bit version of apr by configuring and 
>>> building twice and combining the output with lipo, (apr-1.4.5)
>>> I am trying to accomplish the same thing with the 64-bit version with 
>>> apr-util-1.4.1, but all of my output seems to be i386 32bit,
>>> I am trying to configure and build with the following line:
>>> 
>>> ./configure --target=x86_64 --prefix=`pwd`/64bit  
>>> --with-apr=`pwd`/../apr-1.4.5 CFLAGS="-m64" && make all && make install
>> 
>> Can you clarify why you're trying to explicitly build for a given 
>> architecture?
>> 
>> MacOSX has the concept of a Universal Binary, containing builds for 
>> different architectures in the same binary, and both MacOSX and APR support 
>> this by default out the box.
>> 
>> In other words, if you try a vanilla build of APR, MacOSX will ensure that 
>> all relevant architectures get built, and the right code runs on the right 
>> platform.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Graham
>> --
>> 
> 

Reply via email to