Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #53184, comment 23
- Timestamp:
- Dec 22, 2018, 9:30:58 PM (6 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #53184, comment 23
v1 v2 7 7 It does not generate an error -- instead, it helpfully lets you know in a message that it assumes you had a stroke or something, passed it `-arch i386` by accident, and it builds it anyway, but using what I presume is the `host` arch, and you get a `ppc` executable. 8 8 9 CMake apparently doesn't notice this detail, so it registers the `i386` build a success, adds it to the list of `archs`, and same with `x86_64`. So you wind up, in the end, with two identical binaries, both in actual fact `ppc` binaries, one labelled `i386` and one labelled `x86_64`. 9 CMake apparently doesn't notice this detail, so it registers the `i386` build a success, adds it to the list of `archs`, and same with `x86_64`. So you wind up, in the end, with two identical binaries, both in actual fact `ppc` binaries, one labelled `i386` and one labelled `x86_64`. 10 10 11 11 And that is where the lipo stage above errors out [ticket:53184#comment:5], because it has no idea what is going on now. 12 12 13 At least I think I know what the problem is now :> Maybe this will lead to a fix once I understand how to fix that. 13 At least I think I know what the problem is now :> Maybe this will lead to a fix once I understand how to fix that. (Notably, there is still no build of the `rt` recognized as ppc, it appears.)