The SDL forums have moved to discourse.libsdl.org.
This is just a read-only archive of the previous forums, to keep old links working.


SDL Forum Index
SDL
Simple Directmedia Layer Forums
2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only
eric.w


Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Posts: 38
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:
Quote:
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.

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 Smile

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
rtrussell


Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 88
Daniel Gibson wrote:
AFAIK 2.0.4 OSX binaries being 64bit-only was an accident, so the next release will probably provide both again.

I sincerely hope you're right, but both SDL2_ttf-2.0.13.dmg and SDL2_ttf-2.0.14.dmg are also 64-bit only, which gives me some concern that it may have been a deliberate decision. There are Macs with 32-bit processors running OS-X 10.6 (which AIUI is still supported by SDL2) and, as has been pointed out, there can be good reasons to compile a 32-bit app for later versions (for example if it contains assembler code).

If any mainstream OS stops supporting 32-bit apps that will cause major problems, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Re: 2.0.4 OS X binary release is x86_64 only
rtrussell


Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 88
eric.w wrote:
Just wondering if this was an oversight?

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


Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Posts: 38
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:34 AM, rtrussell wrote:
Quote:



eric.w wrote:

Just wondering if this was an oversight?



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.



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