Re: [EXT] Re: Building "Fat" Mac Binary, or Cross-Compiling from ARM arch to x86-64
Nick <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.openssl.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/2/25 9:01 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
> FWIW, I’m working a lot with Macs, both Intel-based and Apple
> Silicon-based.
>
> In my experience, it’s been _never_ useful to build “fat” binaries.
> They brought nothing but problems.
>
> In our place we build x86_64 binaries for Intel, and AARCH64 for
> Silicon - and is been perfectly satisfactory here. I recommend
> considering the same (proven) approach.
We considered this approach. For context, the software I'm working on
is a commercial closed-source application library, containing only
.so/.dylib/.dll files, delivered in a SDK+Runtime package. Our
customers integrate our software into their application and that gets
deployed to either the cloud or on-prem. Originally we planned to have
2 packages for Mac: 1 for Intel, 1 for Apple Silicon. But as we
thought about the use case of deploying to Mac endpoints, it seemed like
Universal binaries would be easier (ie. "One size fits all").
Your experience is interesting to me. Can you elaborate on the problems
you've faced with Universal ("fat") binaries?
Regards,
Nick
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "openssl-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openssl-users+unsubscribe-MCmKBN63+Bmbup2nOX2J7Q@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/openssl.org/d/msgid/openssl-users/a775e722-60a0-2179-5553-6bfeb8497d66%40codesniffer.com.