![]() |
2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only | ![]() |
eric.w
![]() |
![]() |
Hi,
in another thread, rtrussell pointed out that the 2.0.4 OS X framework is built for x86_64 only ( http://libsdl.org/release/SDL2-2.0.4.dmg ). Just wondering if this was an oversight? Apple made x86_64 a system requirement in OS X 10.7, so I imagine most people still using 10.5/6 are doing so because they have 32-bit CPU's and can't run 10.7+. Could someone edit the download page on the website to read "SDL2-2.0.4.dmg (64-bit Intel 10.5+)"? Thanks, Eric _______________________________________________ SDL mailing list http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org |
||||||||||
|
![]() |
2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only | ![]() |
Evan Ramos
Guest
![]() |
![]() |
It would be worthwhile to recompile the frameworks as universal
libraries supporting the i386, x86_64, and x86_64h architectures. Even though the OS itself has been 64-bit only since 10.7, it can still run 32-bit applications, and developers may have a reason to favor (or only provide!) a 32-bit version of their application. For example, EDuke32 currently has special assembly code only for i386. Until the framework downloads are updated, Homebrew provides Unix-style universal libraries of SDL if you run `brew install --universal sdl2`, and the same for the subprojects. (For existing installations, you will first need to run `brew uninstall --force sdl2` to remove the bottled x86_64-only library.) -Evan _______________________________________________ SDL mailing list http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org |
||||||||||
|
![]() |
2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only | ![]() |
Daniel Gibson
Guest
![]() |
![]() |
On 06/17/2016 10:00 PM, Evan Ramos wrote:
Indeed. I don't even dare to compile Daikatana as 64bit binary.. getting Quake2 64bit clean was hard enough, Daikatana's code is worse.. Also, 32bit/OSX 10.6 compat is nice for older Core2-based Macbooks. AFAIK 2.0.4 OSX binaries being 64bit-only was an accident, so the next release will probably provide both again. If 2.0.5 will take as long as 2.0.4, updated 2.0.4 binaries would be great, of course :) Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ SDL mailing list http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org |
||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Re: 2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only | ![]() |
![]() |
Re: 2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only | ![]() |
rtrussell
![]() |
![]() |
As nobody here seems to know for sure, would it be appropriate to report it as a 'bug' so that the right people will be alerted? Or is there a better way to communicate with whoever is responsible for creating the binaries? Richard. |
||||||||||||
|
![]() |
2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only | ![]() |
eric.w
![]() |
![]() |
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:34 AM, rtrussell wrote:
Yes, reporting a bug sounds good. It looks like Sam disabled 32+64-bit for the Xcode project in this changeset: https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/rev/957d1cf8e26f I attached a patch that restores building 32+64 bit in the Xcode projects (only for release builds; the "Build Active Architecture Only" setting is "true" for debug builds.) Â |
||||||||||||
|