On Friday May 13 2016 10:11:50 Brandon Allbery wrote:
> Remember that OS X goes to great lengths to hide 32 vs. 64 bit
> distinctions; 32 bit OS X kernels were perfectly capable of running 64 bit
> binaries on 64-bit CPUs, at least on Intel. So some of this comes down to
True.
> "Apple so decreed and it's much easier to play along than to try to make OS
> X act differently". In particular, see how arch(1) works.
According to `man arch`:
i386 32-bit intel
x86_64 64-bit intel
which seems perfectly standard (though amd64 would probably have been more
accurate than x86_64)
I don't see anywhere though that i386 can also be interpreted as "32-bit or
64-bit (or whatever) Intel". That's what I find confusing, not that the 32-bit
codeword refers back to the i386 CPU and the 64-bit codeword tries its best to
avoid using the name of a non-Intel CPU ;)
R
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
