Re: [OT] On `ad hominem' - OS X users

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

In theory, one could build the library twice; once natively, and once
cross-compiled. Then, a tool called "lipo" is used to "glue" the two
"skinny" libraries into one "fat" library. I didn't bother doing that,
for two reasons. First, the "perl Makefile.PL machine=none" recipe for
producing a C-only library works, and passes its tests on my machine.
Second, since I'm not a math geek, the C-only library that's produced
that way is good enough for me.

This question is orthogonal to geekiness: the C-only build is
functionally identical, only slower...

Well, my only use for it is to satisfy dependencies for other modules
that use it - IIRC, there are SSH and GPG modules that use it during
key generation, and I couldn't care less if that takes 45 seconds
instead of 30. But a math geek might care a great deal if a simulation
he's running takes 12 hours instead of 8.

Anyway, I'm suspicious of the idea that the asm build is significantly
faster. Compilers have gotten a lot smarter, and CPUs a lot more
complex since the days of counting instruction cycles and optimizing
register use.

BTW: how easy is it to remove multi-arch support from the compiler
flags?

Very. :-) Just use Config.pm in your Makefile.PL, and remove '-arch
i386 -arch ppc' from $Config{ccflags}, $Config{ldflags}, and
$Config{lddlflags} before generating the make file. With no -arch
flags to say otherwise, the compiler defaults to simply building for
whatever architecture it's running on.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
.

Quantcast