4 ms·

There’s definitely some common threads with this and Apple’s push to have apps use bitcode. It would make this duality a lot easier from an app distribution per

by vlozko 7y ago

There’s definitely some common threads with this and Apple’s push to have apps use bitcode. It would make this duality a lot easier from an app distribution perspective without the need to have an emulation layer. My only guess as to why Apple hasn’t required bitcode by now is the sheer number of 3rd party libraries out there that aren’t built with bitcode enabled.

je42 7y ago
they are forcing notarization in the next OS-X update. this means they can eventually force bitcode.
- sjwright 7y ago
  They don't need to force anything: Apple will simply release the hardware and make it straightforward for developers to build fat binaries. And why wouldn't developers eagerly comply? — The vast majority of programs will probably recompile with no changes. — Many developers who will need to make ARM-specific optimisations will have already done that work for iOS releases. Ditto for graphics optimisations for Apple's custom graphics cores. — For the remaining developers, the skill of optimising for Apple's ARM CPU and GPU is already mature in the marketplace. — Most apps which don't fall under the aforementioned categories are probably high performance apps that won't be important for buyers of the smaller iMac and MacBook Air. For a platform with a history of smooth transitions, this would be the easiest "transition" in Apple's history.
yoz-y 7y ago
Chris Lattner has stated several times that bitcode does not help with porting to other platforms though
- twoodfin 7y ago
  He’s said since that while that was true when he left Apple, they have clearly made strides in the direction of making bitcode platform-neutral. Notably the shift from 32-bit to 64-bit ARM on the Watch was totally transparent to developers; they didn’t even need to resubmit their apps. And that’s not a small architectural change.
  - tambourine_man 7y ago
    Can’t you point me to this quote? Not doubting, just want to read more on the topic.
    - twoodfin 7y ago
      https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1091186386634326017 https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1091186386634326017 See also Lattner jumping into this thread referring to the tweet above: https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1129528261254377474 https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1129528261254377474
      - tambourine_man 7y ago
        Thanks
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Only when talking about standard bitcode that everyone has access to directly from LLVM. Apple's toolchain uses a modified version of bitcode, making it more portable. There is a session on WWDC 2019 on how using bitcode made the 64bit transition of watchOS apps relatively easy.

by vlozko 7y ago

je42 7y ago

they are forcing notarization in the next OS-X update. this means they can eventually force bitcode.

sjwright 7y ago
They don't need to force anything: Apple will simply release the hardware and make it straightforward for developers to build fat binaries. And why wouldn't developers eagerly comply? — The vast majority of programs will probably recompile with no changes. — Many developers who will need to make ARM-specific optimisations will have already done that work for iOS releases. Ditto for graphics optimisations for Apple's custom graphics cores. — For the remaining developers, the skill of optimising for Apple's ARM CPU and GPU is already mature in the marketplace. — Most apps which don't fall under the aforementioned categories are probably high performance apps that won't be important for buyers of the smaller iMac and MacBook Air. For a platform with a history of smooth transitions, this would be the easiest "transition" in Apple's history.

yoz-y 7y ago

Chris Lattner has stated several times that bitcode does not help with porting to other platforms though

twoodfin 7y ago
He’s said since that while that was true when he left Apple, they have clearly made strides in the direction of making bitcode platform-neutral. Notably the shift from 32-bit to 64-bit ARM on the Watch was totally transparent to developers; they didn’t even need to resubmit their apps. And that’s not a small architectural change.
- tambourine_man 7y ago
  Can’t you point me to this quote? Not doubting, just want to read more on the topic.
  - twoodfin 7y ago
    https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1091186386634326017 https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1091186386634326017 See also Lattner jumping into this thread referring to the tweet above: https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1129528261254377474 https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1129528261254377474
    - tambourine_man 7y ago
      Thanks
pjmlp 7y ago
Only when talking about standard bitcode that everyone has access to directly from LLVM. Apple's toolchain uses a modified version of bitcode, making it more portable. There is a session on WWDC 2019 on how using bitcode made the 64bit transition of watchOS apps relatively easy.