| Re: [hatari-devel] Mac OS X work |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
- To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] Mac OS X work
- From: Bob Carpenter <hatari@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 14:24:35 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ripon89-us.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e8KRhcEKZmx7aKYjF9GttsNe2n1QFp6tG026QyxlZIM=; b=sHC4MfqXlA6MCIvEpF/P0vdARGmf8exncgY5KEZwPvA8RvL+pkdxx6RzvUsvAs5EUc 1VbQznWpuQ0NYOsFrAdXsoM36P5KgafUZ8KsBCJr5VDIRbRURDCLwV3kQSX75PZhSDpz cRVLY0yByv9wIPgQGVqzU0s+f78IsnbkQEhnr+grm5WZOy5MgG8omu20VtUNBF1qKuaH Yii/+E1zR4VUzBTu/15OxBCJ3O8gNvcl3GZjKmwTF1rKotfN6dstFd3taBFwc8LUXroQ SmLAvMgnB7HubV4khZV4LS9swOZ7S9+HCTRwfgWaqV072irDhCOBMXgVjMebHS2b3egX kJOA==
Troed,
Yes, it looks like the file size of the Hatari binary increased between 1.8 and 1.9. Actually, for 1.8 and 1.9, I am looking at the binary (not package) size of Hatari_Falcon since that used the new WinUAE CPU. However, my latest latest binary (not package) which was compiled with today’s Mercurial code and Jerome’s OS X UI changes is only 11.2 MB. I did check my Xcode project and the default project says the valid architectures are both i386 and x86_64.
If there are other changes to support a fat binary, then I am not doing them. Since I am not creating a generic, downloadable binary like you are, I am simply compiling Hatari for my own use.
Bob C
> On Aug 27, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Troed Sångberg <troed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks for testing Anders and Bob
>
> If anyone on the list has an i386 setup and maybe even OSX 10.5 or 10.6 that would be a good test as well.
>
> Regarding the file size, I saw your earlier comment on that Bob. Was it when we went from v1.8 to 1.9 it ballooned? The current binary (i.e, actual hatari binary, not the whole .app package - and remember it's fat, so both i386 and x64) is 34MB. I haven't used strip so far, but that brings it down to 29MB, just tested it now. If that's still unexpectedly big I'll have to look into other things.
>
> Sounds good that there are other UI changes not in Mercurial still - then I understand what you have been discussing on the list :)
>
> I also believe the sound thing is due to SDL 2 compared to SDL 1.
>
> /Troed
>