On 22/09/2006, at 1:54 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Geoff,
How would the powerpc-darwin -m64 support and x86_64 fit into this
scheme? Would they be considered variants of the powerpc-darwin and
i386-darwin architectures and thus primary platforms as well? Or
would they be secondary platforms? With Apple's 64-bit commitment
in Leopard, they should at least be secondary with an eye to making
them primary in gcc 4.4.
They are not platforms at all; they are command-line flags. They would be treated the same way as any similar command-line flag on a primary platform, say -m64 on AIX. The importance of any problem with them would be determined based on things like how much code is affected, the impact on users, the dangerousness of the fix, etc.
I caution that Apple has made no firm commitment to 64-bit GUI support, or any other feature, in Leopard. As the small grey print at the bottom of <http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html> says, "All features referenced in the Mac OS X Leopard Sneak Peek are subject to change."
From a tools perspective, the additional 64-bit support in Leopard mostly translates to 64-bit support in objective-C and objective-C++, and there doesn't seem to be any especial problem with this even in 4.2.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
