Current RDMD, please?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-08-17 21:18, Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mailman.343.1282068838.13841.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>> But he's a Mac user! :p
>>>
>>
>> Heh, that was exactly my thought ;) I'm not a mac user
>> (nearly-immediate obsolescence is one of the reasons I left the Mac
>> world after giving OSX a serious try for a couple years). My primary
>> OS is ten years old (unless you count service packs), and I'm
>> perfectly happy with it (well, much more happy than I would be with
>> the newer versions of it, like Win7 - I swear, MS's devs are getting
>> to be like Mozilla's).
>
> I'm using a 10 year old Windows XP version, but the difference between
> the Mac world and the Windows world is Microsoft cares about legacy
> compatibility, and my experience with Mac OS X 10.4 .. 10.6 is that
> Apple goes out of their way to make it difficult to build backwards
> compatible binaries.
>
> Take a look at the dmd makefiles for OS X. Worse, Apple's documentation
> on how to do this is contradictory and spread out over obscure web
> pages, so there's a fair amount of trial and error to get it set up
> right. (If Apple cared about this, there'd be nothing more than a switch
> to g++ along the lines of -osx=10.4 and it'll do whatever is necessary
> to build a backward compatible binary.)

It's called -mmacosx-version-min. Just add the version number like this:

gcc main.c -o main -mmacosx-version-min=10.5

> On the other hand, OS X upgrades tend to be cheap ($25) while Windows
> upgrades tend to be expensive (hundreds of $).


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg