boring-sys: Handle cross-compiling macOS targets #84
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jrose-signal
force-pushed
the
macos-cross-compile
branch
from
1d14a60 to
081b0c1
Compare
jrose-signal
changed the title
Collaborator
|
@jrose-signal Thank you! Could you rebase please? |
...such as compiling for Apple Silicon on an Intel Mac.
jrose-signal
force-pushed
the
macos-cross-compile
branch
from
081b0c1 to
a39f0c7
Compare
inikulin
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes actual cross-compile cases, like compiling for Apple Silicon on an Intel Mac.
It also makes builds more consistent by using the SDK in the installed Xcode instead of the host root headers, which is how Apple recommends people build anyway. (If you only have the command line tools installed, though, it should fall back to those without a problem.)In our local branch we have this combined with #73 and #78, but this is pretty separable and probably the least controversial.