3 ms·
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought Apple universal binaries are fat binaries? So why did Apple build this ability if nobody wants it?
by cycomanic 2y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought Apple universal binaries are fat binaries? So why did Apple build this ability if nobody wants it?
- almostgotcaught 2y ago> So why did Apple build this ability if nobody wants it? did you miss the part where they transitioned from x86 to arm64 in 2020?
- cycomanic 2y agoI don't get your point. People were arguing that one doesn't need fat binaries because cross compiling and having different binaries is fine. Apple clearly thought differently when they transitioned from x86 to arm (not their first architecture transition either). So now you're saying because apple finished the transition fat binaries are useless again? What about other platforms?
- almostgotcaught 2y ago> finished the transition fat binaries are useless again? yup that's exactly what i'm saying.
- oriolid 2y ago> apple finished the transition fat binaries are useless again? Is the transition really finished? I'm writing this on a x86_64 Macbook with a browser that is distributed as x86_64/arm64 universal binary.
- E39M5S62 2y agoAnd PowerPC to x86 before that.
- yencabulator 2y agoApple's fat binaries were never very "universal". They put in a codepath where macOS detects and handles macOS-arm-and-x86_64 binaries. That is something where they can support both variants, and themselves in control. Cosmopolitan libc is a pile of hacks, compared to that, more comparable to somebody making Linux boot on a 4004 CPU than what Apple did.