On 8/10/12, Jayson Adams <jay...@circusponies.com> wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Charles Srstka wrote: > >> On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Jayson Adams <jay...@circusponies.com> wrote: >> >>> Except Apple itself says it might not make sense to do so. From the >>> 64-bit Transition Guide: >>> >>> https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/indications/indications.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001064-CH206-TPXREF101 >> >> That article is wildly out of date. Notice how it emphatically advises you >> *not* to compile your applications as 64-bit only, whereas 64-bit only is >> not only the default nowadays, but is required for all the latest >> additions Apple has made to the language (including, but not limited to, >> ARC). > > Not everyone uses ARC, or the other recent additions Apple has made to the > language. > >> It also advises that you should include PPC code in your binaries, which >> Xcode doesn't even let you *do* anymore. > > > This is not the first piece of Apple documentation to contain stale info. > It is a leap to conclude that those portions invalidate the rest of the > document. > > I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong in your general conclusion about > the fate of 32-bit, because you don't know and I don't know either. What I > am saying, though, is that for all of the 32-bit-the-sky-is-falling, the > first place a 32-bit straggler turns—the 64-bit porting guide—the beast > itself states upfront that you really may not want to make the transition > after all. >
There are actually other compelling reasons to move to 64-bit that have nothing to do with the amount of addressable memory or max int. For example, i386 is register starved which has implications on performance. The modern CPU architectures come with security features like data execution prevention and so forth which aren't available in i386. But as I stated earlier, I have already been the victim of i386 bugs in 10.7 and 10.8 that don't exist on the x86_64 (nor do they exist on the iOS side (which is also 32-bit)). To me, this means Apple is not aggressively testing i386. I would extrapolate they are also not going to put priority on fixing these kinds of bugs. Nor do I have any delusion that Apple wants to continue testing/maintaining Mac i386. I'm already surprised they continue to give API parity in the frameworks for 32-bit with new features. But I don't expect that to last. I'm actually surprised 32-bit wasn't dropped in 10.8. (I also expected Java to already be gone after that last security debacle.) -Eric -- Beginning iPhone Games Development http://playcontrol.net/iphonegamebook/ _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
