home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!not-for-mail
- From: sbh@cs.waikato.ac.nz (Stephen B Hodge)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: What the new Amiga-OS *must* have
- Date: 27 Mar 1996 03:56:22 GMT
- Organization: The University of Waikato
- Sender: sbh@waikato.ac.nz
- Message-ID: <4jae96$18ck@thebes.waikato.ac.nz>
- References: <4it1c3$fts@ar.ar.com.au> <4j7dnn$pvs@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
- Reply-To: sbh@waikato.ac.nz
- NNTP-Posting-Host: borg.cs.waikato.ac.nz
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950726BETA PL0]
-
- Cmarschn (cmarschn@aol.com) wrote:
- : Im Artikel <4it1c3$fts@ar.ar.com.au>, storm@ar.ar.com.au (Storm/Cydonia)
- : schreibt:
- :
- : >This I do not understand. Why on earth is it better to have a fat binary,
- : >containing both sets of code, and therefore making the executable twice
- : >as big, with half of it NEVER being refereced. (OK not twice as big, 'cos
- : >the data would only be there once, but bigger). Why is this better than
- : >simply having two executables, one for 680x0 and one for PPC, and letting
- : >the user install the one he needs, without the other one's unnecessary
- : >code cluttering his hard disk.
- :
- : As Steve Edford wrote, it'd be a good bridge between the two systems.
- : Users could easily swap code between two machines, as long as there're the
- : two systems.
- :
- : The system just loads the part of the code that is for the processor built
- : in the machine, so it will not affect your RAM. But you're right, for most
- : applications, two binaries are better. At the term "fat binary" I more
- : thought of the other reasons given in the last part of the sentence.
-
- Will it end at 2 binaires though? Quite a few programs already come in 68000
- and 68020 shades, sometimes with even more for ffp support.
-
- --
-
- Steve Hodge
- sbh@cs.waikato.ac.nz
- Computer Science Dept, University of Waikato,
- Hamilton, New Zealand
-
-