What, like as far as loading into memory or maximum size? Not that I'm
aware of. With FAT, it takes a little longer to locate the proper image to
load into ram (I'd imagine) but (I'd imagine) it is trivial.
--
[ Joseph Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] [ http://srcsys.org ]
[ xMach Core Team xMach: Proactively Unbloated Microkernel BSD ]
[ FreeBSD, NetBSD, & xMach User; (Obj)C(++) Coder ] [ http://xMach.org ]
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d-- s+:++ a--- C+++ UB++++ P+++ L- E---- W++ N+ o-- K- w++
O M+ V PS+ PE- Y+ PGP++ t++ 5-- X+ R tv- b++ DI+ D---
G e* h! r% z+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Sat, 26 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are there any performance issues associated with the binary format?
>
> JAn
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2001, Joseph A. Mallett wrote:
>
> > Apple's patches to GCC add mach-o support, and since it's GCC it's GPL,
> > which is a moot point to us, since we'll be using GCC Anyway.
> >
> > /joseph
> >
> > --
> > [ Joseph Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] [ http://srcsys.org ]
> > [ xMach Core Team xMach: Proactively Unbloated Microkernel BSD ]
> > [ FreeBSD, NetBSD, & xMach User; (Obj)C(++) Coder ] [ http://xMach.org ]
> >
> > -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> > Version: 3.12
> > GCS d-- s+:++ a--- C+++ UB++++ P+++ L- E---- W++ N+ o-- K- w++
> > O M+ V PS+ PE- Y+ PGP++ t++ 5-- X+ R tv- b++ DI+ D---
> > G e* h! r% z+
> > ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> >
> > On Sat, 26 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Well, development tool support is important. Is mach-o supported?
> > >
> > > JAn
> > >
> > > On Sat, 26 May 2001, DraX wrote:
> > >
> > > > Because RMS told them that some how somewhere it would POSSIBLY impede
> > > > RMSism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
