On Dec 11, 2007, at 02:35, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
Am 10.12.2007 um 01:33 schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 14:43, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
Now that Leopard is out and already at 10.5.1 will macports be
supporting 64bit libraries? It's just I need 64bit in my octave
installation. I pull my octave from octave.org's cvs, but it
needs quite a lot of support libraries. From what I gather it
should be possible on Leopard to build fat libraries, i.e. ones
that contain 64 and 32 bit code (i think it works using -arch
x84_64 -arch i686 as gcc flags). Or will this be left to the
separate ports?
MacPorts is supposed to build libraries for whatever system it's
running on. So I would have thought that if you're on a 64-bit
Intel system, it should build 64-bit Intel libraries. Is it
building 32-bit Intel libraries for you?
We have the +universal variant for building 2-way (32-bit, Intel
and PowerPC) universal binaries. We are still in the process of
getting this to work with many of the ports. It could be changed
to build 4-way (32-bit and 64-bit, Intel and PowerPC) universal
binaries. This should be possible on Tiger too, as far as I know.
It won't fix any ports that are having trouble building 2-way
universal binaries. Not sure if it would mess up any ports that
are already working. Are all the ports that you need already
working as 2-way universal binaries?
I haven't heard anyone suggest building libraries that contain 32-
bit and 64-bit code for just one processor family before (in
relation to MacPorts). It would of course be possible, but I think
it would make most sense to continue along our current path:
software should be default install for the architecture you're on,
and if you need multiple architectures, then you need the
+universal variant.
It has been said before that maybe 64-bit binaries aren't all that
helpful, but the Ars Technica review of Leopard explains that
while 64-bit binaries aren't that helpful on the PowerPC
architecture, they really are quite good for secondary reasons on
the Intel architecture. The 32-bit Intel architecture has often
been called inferior to the 32-bit PowerPC architecture, but the
64-bit Intel architecture seems to fix many of the issues. Also,
maybe Leopard being a full 64-bit system makes 64-bit binaries
more relevant.
Perhaps we could do 4-way universal binaries only when MacPorts is
running on Leopard.... but that might be a bad idea, since only
people running Leopard could then develop and test this.
We could introduce a new automatic variant... +universal4?
+universal64? People could test with this new variant and if any
problems are encountered it would not prevent anyone from using
the existing 2-way 32-bit +universal variant. I'm wary of this
though... I wouldn't want, say, "universal64" directives to start
appearing in portfiles, if we want to eventually fold +universal64
into +universal.
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
Hmm, ok. That makes sense, since I upgraded with an installed
macports base. I suppose I should really reinstall all then, since
otherwise I will end up with a crazy mix?
Yes, if you're moving from one architecture to another (G4->G5, PPC-
>Intel, 32-bit->64-bit, etc.) you should really throw away your old
MacPorts (saving any conf files or databases or other data) and
rebuild all your ports.
Though, per default on Leopard compilation seems to be 32 bit. When
you just compile something without further options pointer size is
32bit. Only when you specify -arch x86_64 or -m64 do you get 64bit.
Ah, I see. I didn't know. I haven't had a 64-bit machine.
So it would really make sense to have both (but not ppc). So I
would vote for an autamatic variant to get intel only 32/64bit.
So by default we build 32-bit binaries for the host architecture. And
we have a +universal variant for building 32-bit binaries for both
architectures. You want an additional variant for building fat 32-bit
and 64-bit Intel binaries. Do we then also need a separate variant
for building fat 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC binaries? And what about a
fat universal variant with all 4 options? This proliferation of
variants is what I want to avoid. Most users will not need it and it
will confuse some of them. It's much extra work for some portfile
authors, because some software (rather a lot, actually) does not
build successful universal binaries using the simple tricks, and much
more work is required to build universal. See for example the openssl
port (which, to build universal, you'll have to back-date to version
0.9.8e because of bug #12911) which goes through crazy hoops to build
first for one architecture, then the other, then lipo them together.
Similar (though perhaps not identical) hoops would have to be gone
through for fat binaries or 4-way binaries. Well, that is until
MacPorts base grows some universal-build helpers. (I still really
think MacPorts base should have an easy way to build a port multiple
times, once for each architecture, and lipo it together,
automatically, selected with just a single line in the portfile).
Why, by the way, do you need 64-bit octave? Just curious.
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
