あらかじめLinux/x86用にビルドされたGCC(gcc-4.0.1 / Apple gcc 5247)があるのでそれを利用する。 ここから入手可能。freeverb3vst@sourceforge.jpでミラーしている。 /opt/mac/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdkにAppleから入手したSDKを展開するだけでできる。 Macといっても所詮UNIX + (ObjectiveC + NeXTSTEP Framework)の塊だから、適宜リンクしてあげれば良い。Freeverb3では、この方法で 32bit Mac用のバイナリを作っているが、64bit版は下の方法を使っている。
くわしくはapple-darwin9.txtを参照してください。
odcctools-9.2-ld-r280.tgzにパッチ群をあてたものがodcctools-9.2-ld-r280_patched.tgz。x86/x64/ppc/ppc64の4種類を作れるが、 全部別のディレクトリprefixにインストールするのが無難。x86/ppcは共存できそう。以下は、x64/ppc64の二つのビルドの例。
gcc-workなりをつくってビルドしたほうが、ゴミを消しやすい。
I only discovered this myself quite recently. When Yahoo bought Viaweb, they
asked me what I wanted to do. I had never liked the business side very much,
and said that I just wanted to hack. When I got to Yahoo, I found that what
hacking meant to them was implementing software, not designing it. Programmers
were seen as technicians who translated the visions (if that is the word) of
product managers into code.
This seems to be the default plan in big companies. They do it because it
decreases the standard deviation of the outcome. Only a small percentage of
hackers can actually design software, and it's hard for the people running a
company to pick these out. So instead of entrusting the future of the software
to one brilliant hacker, most companies set things up so that it is designed
by committee, and the hackers merely implement the design.
If you want to make money at some point, remember this, because this is one of
the reasons startups win. Big companies want to decrease the standard
deviation of design outcomes because they want to avoid disasters. But when
you damp oscillations, you lose the high points as well as the low. This is
not a problem for big companies, because they don't win by making great
products. Big companies win by sucking less than other big companies.
-- Paul Graham
-- Hackers and Painters ( http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html )
<convivial> high-rez, but I don't know enough to help you because I am
a newbie to perl programming and although I am in deep luv
with perl and planning on marrying perl, I still have a lot
to learn.
<rindolf> convivial: you can only marry Perl if polygamy is legal
where you live.
<rindolf> convivial: because Perl and I are already married. :-D
<convivial> why is that? i'm single :)
<rindolf> convivial: but Perl isn't.
<convivial> oh crap !
<convivial> all the good languages are already married :(
<rindolf> convivial: COBOL is still single.
<rindolf> convivial: but I heard she's a total bitch.
<convivial> ewwwwwwwwwwww, so is JCL and no one is knocking down either
of their doors
<convivial> rindolf, janet reno is single!
<rindolf> convivial: what kind of programming language is "Janet
Reno"?
<convivial> :)
<convivial> she is a person
<rindolf> convivial: I'm not interested in people, I'm only
interested in programming languages.
<shaldannon> rindolf: you should try Ada
<rindolf> shaldannon: Ada 95?
<shaldannon> yeah
<shaldannon> the syntax of Pascal, the power of Basic and the
friendliness of Java
-- Commiting yourself to a programming language on Freenode's #perl.
-- #perl, Freenode