home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: ar.ar.com.au!not-for-mail
- From: storm@ar.ar.com.au (Storm/Cydonia)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: What the new Amiga-OS *must* have
- Date: 22 Mar 1996 11:56:19 +1000
- Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.
- Message-ID: <4it1c3$fts@ar.ar.com.au>
- References: <4iqgd2$8n7@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <DoM13v.CrB@iglou.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ar.ar.com.au
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 941216BETA PL0]
-
- Steve L. Edford (sledford@iglou.iglou.com) wrote:
- : cmarschn@aol.com (Cmarschn) writes:
-
- : >- A fat binary format is badly needed. Not only that it could hold both
- : >680x0 and PowerPC-Code, the most important thing that is
-
- : This sounds very reasonable....matter of fact, I like it! :-) Well, at
- : least the part about bridging between 68K & PowerPC code. Unfortunately,
- : this will probably mean more bloated code.
-
- 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.
-
- Maybe someone with more knowledge of these fat binaries could tell me
- what the advantages are? Unless there's some advantage a damn sight
- better than "it's easier for the user just to have one executable",
- then this idea sucks.
-
- -- ______________________________
- \_/ "\/\/\__"\/ "\/ "\/\__"\_/
- Storm / Cydonia / / / / / / / / / / / / ' / Packing class
- / /\/> / / / / / / / / / /__ & kicking arse!
- (coder) \__/ \_/\__/\__/\/\/\/\/\/ \/
-