Mac OS X Universal Binary Frameworks built? |
Steven Saunders
Guest
|
Hi All,
Just thought I'd check before trying to do it myself: Has anyone out there built the SDL 1.2.9 and SDL_mixer 1.2.6 Mac OS X *frameworks* (not .a's) in universal binary (ppc and i386) form yet? If so, can someone point me to where I can download them? Thanks. __ Steve Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com |
|||||||||||
|
Mac OS X Universal Binary Frameworks built? |
Richard Schreyer
Guest
|
I have built Universal binaries SDL 1.2.9 (out of CVS) and SDL_image
1.2.4 for use with OpenGL. They work just fine. I haven't used any 2D drawing, so I do not know if the SSE blitters are active. I also haven't tried SDL_mixer. I also spent quite a bit of time cleaning the cruft out of the project files left over by several previous projectbuilder/xcode upgrades. The way I have it set up, the debug configuration builds for the current target while the release configuration builds for ppc/ i386. SDL_image also required compiling UB versions of libpng and libjpeg. I am not prepared to submit these back yet because: - The install targets (specifically the run_scripts build phases) are basically flawed. I haven't spent any time trying to update these. Xcode's existing infrastructure is perfectly capable of dealing with the install task on it's own, so ideally we would dump the custom shell scripts entirely, and just use what is already provided to us. - 10.1/10.2 support. As my project files are set up, the minimum target that SDL is compiled for is 10.3.9, and requires the 10.4.0 Universal SDK. Xcode 2.2 does contain the ability to compile against different SDKs depending on the target architecture, so I need to investigate this. I also don't have any 10.1 or 10.2 systems to test against. (What is the earliest version that SDL needs to support at runtime?). I also haven't come up with a great solution to include paths in xcode projects (since other users will have these installed at different locations, or want to install their headers to different locations). This is the ugly side of using #include "foo" where we really should be using #include <SDL/foo> (can this please change in SDL 1.3?). I assume there is some interest in trying to address these issues and get SDL building Universal directly out of CVS? How much of this has already been done by others but not checked in? Richard On Jan 5, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Steven Saunders wrote:
|
|||||||||||||
|
Mac OS X Universal Binary Frameworks built? |
Mac OS X Universal Binary Frameworks built? |
Ryan C. Gordon
Guest
|
Not semi-officially: if I tried to ship a game that didn't support 10.2, my publisher would refuse to ship until I corrected it. It seems that 10.2 is the minimum acceptable platform in terms of marketing, at least at this point. I've never had anyone complain that a title didn't work on 10.1. I'd actually like it to work back to 10.0, but not if it requires lots of work or ugly changes...the public beta, though? That crap can go. :) --ryan. |
|||||||||||||
|