From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <4372C2A2.1090802@lanl.gov> References: <437259C9.5010003@lanl.gov> <0E7FF0EA-61C0-4806-9533-070EAFAAEF30@lanl.gov> <43726187.8000806@lanl.gov> <4372C2A2.1090802@lanl.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <98C8D026-907D-4DAB-8A12-05C964625FA4@corpus-callosum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jeff Sickel Subject: Re: [9fans] plan9ports & macos 10.4 don't like each othere. Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:25:33 -0600 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: aa017164-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:46 PM, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > > I don't know what the issue is, have not had time to look at it. Russ posted a recent update to libthread and there are updates to bin/ 9l and src/cmd/auxstats/mkfile that I hope make it in sometime in the near future (only needed for auxstats right now, and I respect Russ' busy schedule). This actually leads to the question: since Apple's announced the x86 support for Mac OS X, would it be beneficial to modify the mkfile's for the Darwin port to support the MachO multi-binary options by making 9c & 9l deal with the Darwin sources in a similar way as the Plan 9 compiler does? Though MachO supports 'fat' binaries after the linker has handled them, I think it would be better to handle the object files in the same manner as the Plan 9 compiler and save them as .[v851ok0q2t6] only to let the linker squish them together if needed (still allowing for fully separate libraries and executables for each Darwin platform if needed). Would anyone mind if I made the required changes to 9c, 9l and any supporting mkfiles? jas