It appears that both intel and arm (by default) are little endians. arm V8 can be configured to be both.
Sent by Magic! > On Jun 7, 2021, at 8:34 AM, Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 10:38 AM CV Bruce <cvbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Now that I think about it rexx.img was the primary problem. It contains >> executable code, but is not in a library format. You can’t even combine x86 >> and amd64 into one binary. > I contains no native code, only core classes and and methods that are written > in Rexx in a pre-compiled format. However, all values are stored in the .img > file using the native architecture endian-ness. Intel is little-endian and > I'm pretty sure ARM is big-endian, do the images would not be compatible. > >> >> There was probably a good reason why rexx.img was implemented (speed or >> space?). > It was a huge savings in startup time, particularly back when a really fast > machine ran at about 100Mhz and memory was still very expensive. It might be > that things have gotten fast enough now that removing this might not be a > huge impact, and there might even be some advantages to no longer having > this, but it would not be a simple experiment to perform. > > >> >> Perhaps it’s time to talk about eliminating or replacing it with something >> more standard. > The replacement would be to reparse and translate all of the core classes > from source each time the interpreter is started. > > Rick > >> >> Bruce >> >> Sent by Magic! >> >> > On Jun 7, 2021, at 7:22 AM, CV Bruce <cvbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > The last time I looked at this, probably ppc/x86, it wasn’t possible >> > because Rexx is invoked during the build. There are tools to combine >> > single binaries into “universal” binaries, but what your are really asking >> > is can OORexx be cross compiled for a non-native architecture. Even then >> > there were, if I remember correctly, problems with the Rexx.img file. >> > Bruce >> > >> > Sent by Magic! >> > >> >> On Jun 7, 2021, at 5:30 AM, Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> As Apple has been selling new hardware with a proper processor, it would >> >> be important to support >> >> that hardware platform. >> >> >> >> In the past Apple allowed for "fat binaries" which included binaries for >> >> different hardware >> >> architectures in the same file. Would it be possible with CMake to have >> >> such ooRexx "fat binaries" >> >> created for the MacOS platform? If so, how would one be able to achieve >> >> that? >> >> >> >> ---rony >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> >> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
