From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mat@ardi.com (Mat Hostetter)
To: hjl@innovix.com (H.J. Lu)
Cc: A.Schroeter@DKFZ-Heidelberg.de (Andre Schroeter), gcc2@cygnus.com, ian@cygnus.com (Ian Lance Taylor), raeburn@cygnus.com (Ken Raeburn), gas2@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: fat binaries ?
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:25:00 -0000
Message-id: <m0uORZx-000GQSC@gwar.ardi.com>
References: <9605281010.ZM21624@borneo.inet.dkfz.heidelberg.de> <m0uOQ2D-0000WKC@eric.innovix.com> <m0uOQ2D-0000WKC@eric.innovix.com>
X-SW-Source: 1996/msg00033.html

>>>>> "H" == H J Lu <hjl@innovix.com> writes:

    >>  hallo, just a silly question out of curiosity:
    >> 
    >> are there plans to include the functionality to produce 'fat
    >> binaries' into the linux c compilers ?  i mean the ability to
    >> automaticaly crosscompile for different linux platforms and
    >> bind everything into one binary? i think this would be very
    >> nice for commercial companies that will only provide binaries.
    >> 

    H> I doubt if it will ever be supported directly. Maybe a front
    H> end?

FWIW, I seem to remember one of NeXT's engineers saying at a NeXTWORLD
conference that NeXT had patented fat binaries "for defensive
reasons".  I haven't seen the patent, and my memory of that conference
is a bit fuzzy, so don't take my word for it.

-Mat