> On Sep 20, 2018, at 3:02 PM, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> Yes, but based on the above output, the SDK wasn't used. If the SDK had been
>> used, a 32-bit build would not have been possible, as far as I understand.
>>
>
Setting
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Yes, but based on the above output, the SDK wasn't used. If the SDK had been
> used, a 32-bit build would not have been possible, as far as I understand.
>
You are right, the SDK apparently has no tapi symbols for i386:
configure:3118:
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> So — something is still working right, at least on 10.13 with Xcode 10.
>
> Yes, but based on the above output, the SDK wasn't used. If the SDK had been
> used, a 32-bit build would not have been possible, as far as I understand.
>
On Sep 20, 2018, at 13:43, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I have not looked into it, but if the macOS SDK in Xcode 10 removes the same
>> aspects of 32-bit support that macOS Mojave removes, then we may not want to
>> impose those restrictions on
On Sep 17, 2018, at 21:55, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> I’m about to archive my current high sierra setup into a VM, and if possible,
> I’d like it to match the way the buildbot will be finally left.
>
> 10.13 with XCode 9?
>
> or
>
> 10.13 with Xcode 10?
>
> I guess people who stay on 10.13
I’m about to archive my current high sierra setup into a VM, and if possible,
I’d like it to match the way the buildbot will be finally left.
10.13 with XCode 9?
or
10.13 with Xcode 10?
I guess people who stay on 10.13 will be prompted to upgrade to XCode 10 by the
App Store, and so I
