Re: "-arch i386" -- Still useful?

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Joar Wingfors wrote: > OmniGroup publishes the statistics that they gather from their software > updates: > >         > > Very interesting stuff (they only have 3.4% of their users on Core Duos). The graph you want to look at can be

Re: "-arch i386" -- Still useful?

On 6 maj 2010, at 13.33, Jay O'Conor wrote: > I'm writing this on one of those 32-bit only Intel MacBook Pros, so we're > definitely out here. I wouldn't abandon 32-bit Intel systems quite yet, > unless you have a compelling need. In a case like this is probably a good idea to follow Apple's

Re: "-arch i386" -- Still useful?

First generation Intel MacBook Pros use a Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) chip and therefore can only run 32-bit code. Earlier Intel Mac Minis are also 32-bit only, using Core Solo or Core Duo. I'm writing this on one of those 32-bit only Intel MacBook Pros, so we're definitely out here. I wouldn't

Re: "-arch i386" -- Still useful?

On May 6, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Patrick M. Rutkowski wrote: > Is the "-arch i386" argument to gcc (for building for i386 as opposed > to x86_64). My fairly new iMac, for example, seems to be x86_64. Are > there any intel macs which really are i386, and could not run x86_64 > binaries? Yes. Specifica

Re: "-arch i386" -- Still useful?

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Patrick M. Rutkowski wrote: > Are > there any intel macs which really are i386, and could not run x86_64 > binaries? They didn't last long, but yes. I thought the same thing before building some software and found out the hard way. > -Patrick Daniel http://www.do

"-arch i386" -- Still useful?

Is the "-arch i386" argument to gcc (for building for i386 as opposed to x86_64). My fairly new iMac, for example, seems to be x86_64. Are there any intel macs which really are i386, and could not run x86_64 binaries? -Patrick ___ Cocoa-dev mailing list