home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
- From: cmarschn@aol.com (Cmarschn)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: What the new Amiga-OS *must* have
- Date: 25 Mar 1996 19:28:39 -0500
- Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
- Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
- Message-ID: <4j7dnn$pvs@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
- References: <4it1c3$fts@ar.ar.com.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
- X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader
-
- 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.
-
-
- cu
-
- Clemens
-
-
- ///
- ---
- ///-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- \\\/// Clemens Marschner
- CMarschn@aol.com
- -\///------------------------------"Uh, I shot Marvin in the face!"
- (Travolta)
-
-