4 ms·
Why not just require apps to be distributed as LLVM bitcode, as is done for the Apple watch? That would give Apple the flexibility to change architectures--or e
by jasonhansel 6y ago
Why not just require apps to be distributed as LLVM bitcode, as is done for the Apple watch? That would give Apple the flexibility to change architectures--or even to create its own instruction set, now that it's making its own chips.
- p_l 6y agoLLVM bitcode is not that portable in reality. Just like Plan9 assembly intermediary bitcode files are pretty much single architecture, due to containing lots and lots of low-level assumptions about the target architecture, not to mention possible incompatibilities in extended intrinsics (for example for vector units).
- Scaevolus 6y agoMost of the portability problems for retargetting to another little endian 64-bit architecture aren't the easy ones of bit widths and integer types, but rather more subtle things like a more relaxed memory model and different performance characteristics. It's not worth the overhead of attempting to ship bitcode. Apple has shipped products on 6502, 68000, PPC, x86, x86-64, ARM, and ARM64. The transitions have been annoying for the lost software, but that's not an unusual occurrence for an OSX upgrade either.
- philistine 6y agoWhat was the Newton using ?
- portlander52232 6y agoThey were also ARM.