From: ········@acm.org
Subject: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <1155219549.827169.177440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
??

Intel Mac version? Does this mean Allegro CL is not able to produce
Universal applications?

From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <op.td26qrvqpqzri1@pandora.upc.no>
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:19:09 +0200, <········@acm.org> wrote:

> ??
>
> Intel Mac version? Does this mean Allegro CL is not able to produce
> Universal applications?
>

What is a universal application?
No it is not a cross compiler.
You need a verson for the platform you choose.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: llothar
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <1155252682.404424.120090@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
> > Intel Mac version? Does this mean Allegro CL is not able to produce
> > Universal applications?
> >
>
> What is a universal application?
> No it is not a cross compiler.
> You need a verson for the platform you choose.

And pay once a again a few thousand Dollar per developer seat. Hey man
this sucks.
The vendors should really offer a one license for all platforms schema.

Next step is to sell everybody the 64bit AMD versions of the systems
rights ?
From: marc spitzer
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrnednoha.qnh.ms4720@sdf.lonestar.org>
On 2006-08-10, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
>
>> > Intel Mac version? Does this mean Allegro CL is not able to produce
>> > Universal applications?
>> >
>>
>> What is a universal application?
>> No it is not a cross compiler.
>> You need a verson for the platform you choose.
>
> And pay once a again a few thousand Dollar per developer seat. Hey man
> this sucks.
> The vendors should really offer a one license for all platforms schema.

honestly why?  what is in it for them?  Also why should the linux people
have to buy a windows license and the other way also.

Now lets look at a 10 developer project, 10 linux seats and 2 each mac 
and windows for porting.  14 seats total.  And the number of purchaced 
licences is a good guide on where to put your development dollars.

And since you are talking about allegro, do not worry about developer
seats but runtime licensing.

marc
-- 
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <op.td4h11bvpqzri1@pandora.upc.no>
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:31:22 +0200, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:

>
>> > Intel Mac version? Does this mean Allegro CL is not able to produce
>> > Universal applications?
>> >
>>
>> What is a universal application?
>> No it is not a cross compiler.
>> You need a verson for the platform you choose.
>
> And pay once a again a few thousand Dollar per developer seat. Hey man
> this sucks.
> The vendors should really offer a one license for all platforms schema.
>
> Next step is to sell everybody the 64bit AMD versions of the systems
> rights ?
>

If you don't have money for the compiler chances are that
you can't afford the manpower either.
Anyhow you can get a student version for 99$.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <X9OCg.75$5L4.66@newsfe10.lga>
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:19:09 +0200, <········@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> ??
>>
>> Intel Mac version? Does this mean Allegro CL is not able to produce
>> Universal applications?
>>
> 
> What is a universal application?

aka "fat binary", since one jams two binaries into one EXE (or what 
passes for an EXE on Mac OS X, which is nothing like an EXE. Resolved at 
launch by what I am sure is astonishing legerdemain. The advantage is 
that one just ships one "OS X" version and do not worry who is on the 
receiving end (and they do not have to worry when ordering).

hthkt

-- 
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/

"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
    -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <hfOCg.78$5L4.75@newsfe10.lga>
Ken Tilton wrote:
> 
> 
> John Thingstad wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:19:09 +0200, <········@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> ??
>>>
>>> Intel Mac version? Does this mean Allegro CL is not able to produce
>>> Universal applications?
>>>
>>
>> What is a universal application?
> 
> 
> aka "fat binary", since one jams two binaries into one EXE (or what 
> passes for an EXE on Mac OS X, which is nothing like an EXE. Resolved at 
> launch by what I am sure is astonishing legerdemain. The advantage is 
> that one just ships one "OS X" version and do not worry who is on the 
> receiving end (and they do not have to worry when ordering).

I might have mentioned that it is up to the development environment to 
build such a distributable, tho with Mac OS X and symlinks and 
frameworks and lord knows what else perhaps it is possible for someone 
to roll their own universal distributable.

kt

-- 
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/

"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
    -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <2006081020064675249-raffaelcavallaro@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>
On 2006-08-10 18:16:45 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:

> I might have mentioned that it is up to the development environment to 
> build such a distributable, tho with Mac OS X and symlinks and 
> frameworks and lord knows what else perhaps it is possible for someone 
> to roll their own universal distributable.

Yes, there is a command line tool called lipo that comes with the Dev 
Tools that does just this - combines two different architecture 
binaries into a single universal binary. (it can do other things too - 
such as remove one architecture from a fat binary)
From: Dave Seaman
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <ebgov5$lp2$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:06:46 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-08-10 18:16:45 -0400, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:

>> I might have mentioned that it is up to the development environment to 
>> build such a distributable, tho with Mac OS X and symlinks and 
>> frameworks and lord knows what else perhaps it is possible for someone 
>> to roll their own universal distributable.

> Yes, there is a command line tool called lipo that comes with the Dev 
> Tools that does just this - combines two different architecture 
> binaries into a single universal binary. (it can do other things too - 
> such as remove one architecture from a fat binary)

You can also do the following:

[titan:dseaman] $ gcc -arch ppc -arch i386 foo.c -o foo
[titan:dseaman] $ file foo
foo: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
foo (for architecture ppc):     Mach-O executable ppc
foo (for architecture i386):    Mach-O executable i386
[titan:dseaman] $ 


-- 
Dave Seaman
U.S. Court of Appeals to review three issues 
concerning case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
<http://www.mumia2000.org/>
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <2006081023595950073-raffaelcavallaro@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>
On 2006-08-10 22:10:45 -0400, Dave Seaman <·······@no.such.host> said:

> You can also do the following:
> 
> [titan:dseaman] $ gcc -arch ppc -arch i386 foo.c -o foo
> [titan:dseaman] $ file foo
> foo: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
> foo (for architecture ppc):     Mach-O executable ppc
> foo (for architecture i386):    Mach-O executable i386

The fact that gcc can do this is unlikely to help you if your compiler 
generates single architecture lisp binaries though. However, even 
single architecture binaries can be combined with lipo.
From: cesare76
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <1155297037.931503.51140@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
So ...to recap ... I work on Osx ... I want to generate an EXE to be
run on a win platform ... can I?

-c.

Raffael Cavallaro ha scritto:

> On 2006-08-10 22:10:45 -0400, Dave Seaman <·······@no.such.host> said:
>
> > You can also do the following:
> >
> > [titan:dseaman] $ gcc -arch ppc -arch i386 foo.c -o foo
> > [titan:dseaman] $ file foo
> > foo: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
> > foo (for architecture ppc):     Mach-O executable ppc
> > foo (for architecture i386):    Mach-O executable i386
>
> The fact that gcc can do this is unlikely to help you if your compiler
> generates single architecture lisp binaries though. However, even
> single architecture binaries can be combined with lipo.
From: Ralf Mattes
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <pan.2006.08.11.13.13.35.753372@mh-freiburg.de>
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:50:38 -0700, cesare76 wrote:

> So ...to recap ... I work on Osx ... I want to generate an EXE to be
> run on a win platform ... can I?

No, but that's not a recap at all. The OP's question was about "fat"
binaries, i.e. binaries that run on OSX PPC as well as OSX Intel.

Cheers, Ralf Mattes

> -c.
> 
> Raffael Cavallaro ha scritto:
> 
>> On 2006-08-10 22:10:45 -0400, Dave Seaman <·······@no.such.host> said:
>>
>> > You can also do the following:
>> >
>> > [titan:dseaman] $ gcc -arch ppc -arch i386 foo.c -o foo
>> > [titan:dseaman] $ file foo
>> > foo: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
>> > foo (for architecture ppc):     Mach-O executable ppc
>> > foo (for architecture i386):    Mach-O executable i386
>>
>> The fact that gcc can do this is unlikely to help you if your compiler
>> generates single architecture lisp binaries though. However, even
>> single architecture binaries can be combined with lipo.
From: Raffael Cavallaro
Subject: Re: "Intel Mac ACL"
Date: 
Message-ID: <2006081117354243658-raffaelcavallaro@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom>
On 2006-08-11 09:13:38 -0400, Ralf Mattes <··@mh-freiburg.de> said:

> No, but that's not a recap at all. The OP's question was about "fat"
> binaries, i.e. binaries that run on OSX PPC as well as OSX Intel.

Recap:
Apple's gcc can take c or objective c source code and turn it into fat 
binaries. However, if your lisp compiler produces single architecture 
binaries (and all the ones I'm familiar with do) you need to use the 
command line tool lipo to combine the two architecture binaries into a 
single Universal Binary.

Just wait for Leopard and 4 architectures (ppc & intel x 32 bit & 64 bit)!