Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #53184, comment 23


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 22, 2018, 9:30:58 PM (5 years ago)
Author:
kencu (Ken)
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #53184, comment 23

    v1 v2  
    77It 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.
    88
    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`.
     9CMake 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`. 
    1010
    1111And that is where the lipo stage above errors out [ticket:53184#comment:5], because it has no idea what is going on now.
    1212
    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.
     13At 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.)