Use x86 Boxes to Compile Mac OS X Binaries 64
IceFox writes "While working on the KDE on Darwin project I have only had one Mac to do development with. At the same time I have been playing around with distcc for Linux/x86 compiling. Combining the two projects I built a Mac OS X cross-compiler (for Linux/x86) and have created the DistccPPCKnoppix distribution. DistccPPCKnoppix is a 46MB Knoppix distribution based on distccKnoppix; with it you can use your extra x86 computers to build Linux/x86 or Mac OS X/PPC binaries. It might not be as shiny as an Xserve cluster, but it is a heck of a lot cheaper."
This is news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose it's worth noting that someone's distributing such a cross-compiler, but the most newsworthy aspect is that it took somebody this long to get around to doing it.
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Funny)
oh dear. linux is unstoppable. you'd think that, by now, the point where linux is becoming 'The Development Environment of Choice' for compiling stuff for Other Operating Systems, well
Works in reverse, too...I think! (Score:4, Informative)
But check out this excerpt from gcc's man pages: Aww man...all my moderation's going to be undone in this discussion now. Well, to the person who said something funny up there: Good job.
Re:Works in reverse, too...I think! (Score:1)
Re:Works in reverse, too...I think! (Score:5, Informative)
Compiling ppc on x86 or x86 on ppc is actually a bit easier using OpenDarwin [opendarwin.org]. You can run this fat on your hardware and emit fat executables just as the man page suggests.
cr
Re:Works in reverse, too...I think! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Darwin 7.x installation CD you can get from Apple (also linked from opendarwin.org) does have fat binaries for everything, although MacOS X proper doesn't.
Well, a slight correction - everything in /usr/bin in the Darwin 7.x is either a script or a fat binary, with one sole exception - distcc. Methinks Apple doesn't like the idea of Mac developers buying a Mac for every desk, then a pile of cheap x86's to make builds ten times faster :)
fruits (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, yeah, an Xserve is a piece of hardware, and a C-compiler is a piece of software. apples and oranges.
you could install distcc on your Xserve cluster, nnd it (the software) would still be cheap, and it (the hardware) would also be shiny.
Um, i guess the point is that if you want distributed compiling for MacOSX, heretofore the only option was Xserve cluster, and now linux/x86 cluster is also an option. ok ok....
Re:fruits (Score:4, Funny)
Actually the article was about apples and pcs.
Re:fruits (Score:4, Funny)
So he should have said apples and lemons?
Re:fruits (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:fruits (Score:4, Informative)
There is latency added to the compile process by having to distribute things out over the network. I think there was an Apple white paper or tech note that talked about these issues in more detail.
It needs a speedy network. Apple engineers recommend Gigabit Ethernet but 100baseT will due in a pinch. They don't see much speed savings over 10BaseT or Airport.
It needs fast processors. G5's are the recommended platform. Be wary of sub-Gigahertz G4's. Forget the G3's.
The distributed compilation feature is a GREAT addition to XCode, but I still see a place for this project among those who are really on a tight budget (like me) but who still want to support Macs when feasible.
Cool, I like this! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cool, I like this! (Score:3)
I wonder how hard it will be to get distcc going inside Xcode?
Re:Cool, I like this! (Score:5, Interesting)
How it should be (Score:5, Interesting)
Mac is about the desktop, why not use cheap bland hardware for backend muling.
And that is how it should be, we should be able to select the type of hardware for the job in hand, the software should run wherever it is required.
Re:How it should be (Score:5, Interesting)
sometimes, you're a small business and you don't want to pay someone $xxxxxx to run your backend mules. You don't know how to grok Linux email and file servers because you're a parts manufacturer, or a solar panel business, or a gift basket maker...
With Mac OS X Server and a $300 iMac off eBay and prudent backups, you could run email for 40 people and have your own webserver off your home DSL with no problem.
I only know this because i did it. They know jack shit about running computers. I did the scary part and installed the server for them (i hit "okay" a lot) and then showed them...
see this window? This is where you add users... this window shows you that your email server is running just fine.
They call me every so often to tell me that things are fine. And i get to not answer dumbass questions and watch the playoffs on ESPN.
They own their IT... their IT does not own them.
With Linux, if you're going to have geeks around, then yes, its cheaper and does everything i just mentioned at a MUCH lower cost. But if you're not a geek, and you want services like email and web servers for small business, and you want rock solid performance (not Windows shitty performance) then you're wanting Mac OS X Server.
Mac OS X Server is the greatest boon to small business i've ever seen. I have helped 4 small businesses (friends) do this - and they are all running just fine without me - and they have all the stability that they would get from a competent Linux install and a in-house geek running it.
Mac OS X Server can get a lot of low-ball geeks fired... OR it can help low-ball geeks make a lot of money serving a lot more customers. Its all in how you think about it.
Re:How it should be (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How it should be (Score:1)
Re:How it should be (Score:2)
Re:How it should be (Score:2)
So now we don't just have to worry about outsourcing to India, but outsourcing to our own computers even!
Re:How it should be (Score:1)
Re:How it should be (Score:2)
Re:How it should be (Score:2)
Re:How it should be (Score:2)
In both countries GM is perceived as a remote US company that makes non european cars such as ghetto cruisers, pick up, and SUV's.
Just by Ironic twist, mo
One more thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One more thing... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One more thing... (Score:5, Informative)
In XCode, the equivalent of a Makefile is called project.pbxproj (it's a text file) and the equivalent of make is a command called pbxbuild.
So everything you need to do is to create the utility that parses project.pbxproj and compiles.
Of course, make with a Makefile works perfectly fine, but XCode doesn't create those files for you.
Re: One more thing... (Score:3, Informative)
PBTOMAKE -- Xcode
??
Why not, I hear you ask??
Re:One more thing... (Score:3, Informative)
From Apple [apple.com]
Re:One more thing... (Score:2)
Re:One more thing... (Score:1)
1. Set up Linux mDNS responder, as described here: RendezvousForLinuxHacks [chrismetcalf.net]
2. Find out the "service code" for xCode rendezvous services, and enter into config file.
3. Profit!!
Unfortunately there are comments about Apple using a different/older version of distcc - don't know how that is going to impact things ??
The iso download (Score:5, Informative)
-Benjamin Meyer
Re:The iso download (Score:2)
Re:The iso download (Score:1)
Re:The iso download (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The iso download (Score:2)
Re:The iso download (Score:2)
Thanks, ben, it's not like I needed to check my mail or anything...
Yessss (Score:2)
Re:Yessss (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yessss (Score:1)
The only downside to Objective-C is that you DO take a slight (very slight according to those in the know) performance hit.
Other than that, I love it.
Apple GCC vs. GNU GCC (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Apple GCC vs. GNU GCC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple GCC vs. GNU GCC (Score:3, Interesting)
I simply could *not* get my development work done ( at least, not gracefully ) without Objective-C++, and that's a bit hampering considering I'm a believer in The Right Tool for the Right Job.
Some things are better written in C++ and some things are better written in Objective-C. Sometimes both will be needed for one project, and if i have to write vanilla C glue between them I'll be rather unhappy. Sure, C glue-code wo
Re:Apple GCC vs. GNU GCC (Score:2)
I've got an idea for this. First of all I'm going to follow these instructions to make myself a GCC and cctools that target OS X on PPC. Then I'm considering going back and compiling Apple's GCC targetting Linux because I'm rather curious to get wxWindows (err, wxWidgets [wxwidgets.org] now) for Cocoa working with GNUstep. The apple version of GCC should still be able to target linux and of course does have an Objective-C++ compiler which I need for wxCocoa.
Error in Title... (Score:1, Informative)
And it's also the slashdot way to point out every teh and misused apostrophe.
Re:Error in Title... (Score:1)
Nice job (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be really cool is an x86 agent for iMovie, iDVD, and Final Cut - where it could offload all of the number frunching of MPEG2 compression or other video conversion to some cheap PC's in the basement. I would love to have my 450MHz G4 Cube as the front end, and my Athlon 64 doing the heavy lifting behind the scenes.
Re:Nice job (Score:2)
And anyway, they want you to replace your G4-450 with a G5, not an Athlon64.
Sparc... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now when is someone going to post binaries for cross-compiling to Mach-O PPC from Sparc's. I've got a bunch of Sun's here I could be using. Granted, I know I could do this myself. But gcc takes so bloody long to compile