Xcode 2.1 - Cool!

Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2005.01
Post: #1
I downloaded this today and got it installed tonight. 45 minutes or so later, I've got my framework and my game (Marbol) compiled and running with the new xcodeproj project format *and* fat linked for x86. It really is that easy, apparently. Smile

With the fat linking, my binary bundle size only went up by about 600KB (out of 6MB). Not too bad of a size hit.

I'm digging the new "layout style" preference, too. Finally I can have my Visual Studio style "everything in one window" format. The multiple windows may be more Mac-traditional but it was driving me nuts.

Anyone else have any experiences with Xcode 2.1 so far?

Cryptic Allusion Games / Cryptic Allusion, LLC
http://www.cagames.com/
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 613
Joined: 2004.09
Post: #2
I installed 2.0 and had all sorts of problems, most of my programs broke, gcc 4.0 hated me and all sorts of other issues. I was hoping 2.1 would fix some of these hassels but im a little worried about upgrading it. Just my 2¢s

Kyle Richter
DragonForged.com
Twitter: @kylerichter
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2005.01
Post: #3
Yeah, I admit I was already running 2.0 without issues. I had some problems with a few things in my projects vs 1.5, but it turns out (after discussion with my friend at work who spends half his free time reading ISO specs) that I was doing some things wrong anyway. The new GCC is just a lot stricter about the C++ standards.

I haven't done anything super crazy though, so maybe I just haven't exercised it enough to run into the breakage yet.

EDIT: Wild!! This is post #88888.

Cryptic Allusion Games / Cryptic Allusion, LLC
http://www.cagames.com/
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 508
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #4
When I installed Xcode 2.0, nothing would compile. Xcode couldn't find any of the frameworks for some reason. So what I did was use the uninstall script, remove any other things manually and reinstall a fresh copy of Xcode 2.0.

Once that was done, everything worked. So doing a clean Xcode install is your best bet to survival.

Btw, you could have all in one window style since Project Builder. Only the debugger window was still a separate window.

"When you dream, there are no rules..."
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: 2005.04
Post: #5
Does Xcode 2.1 break Shark and a few other tools for you? It seems to for me... I can't perform a time profile on my apps with Shark anymore (I can start and stop sampling, but I don't get a table of results). Also, BigTop crashes on launch.

Anyone else having these issues?

edit: I uninstalled, then reinstalled the 2.1 dev tools. Everything now works without a hitch. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 437
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #6
Dan Potter Wrote:With the fat linking, my binary bundle size only went up by about 600KB (out of 6MB). Not too bad of a size hit.

I guess Carlos will have to up the uDG size allowance by ~600K then. :-)

And I'll just point out the obvious: you haven't actually tested the Intel binary yet. Hopefully it really is that easy though.

Measure twice, cut once, curse three or four times.
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,199
Joined: 2004.10
Post: #7
Dan Potter Wrote:Yeah, I admit I was already running 2.0 without issues. I had some problems with a few things in my projects vs 1.5, but it turns out (after discussion with my friend at work who spends half his free time reading ISO specs) that I was doing some things wrong anyway. The new GCC is just a lot stricter about the C++ standards.

Heh. Me too -- I had some linking cruft dating back to stuff I wrote under project builder on Jaguar which simply wouldn't work on GCC4.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2005.01
Post: #8
MattDiamond Wrote:I guess Carlos will have to up the uDG size allowance by ~600K then. :-)

Well, my app doesn't really have a ton of code, to be fair. About 75% of the size, too, is my framework that I'm not using most of yet. It could be a bigger hit for others (or smaller...).

Quote:And I'll just point out the obvious: you haven't actually tested the Intel binary yet. Hopefully it really is that easy though.

Yeah, I'd love to test the Intel binary. Unfortunately Apple provided no way for me to do that, unless I want to pay $1.5k for the privilege of using their pre-release Intel hardware for a year. Count me out.

On the other hand, I have been dual-compiling my game for Win32 since it was first created, so it's very likely just fine. How's that for a "double life"? Wink

Cryptic Allusion Games / Cryptic Allusion, LLC
http://www.cagames.com/
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 2004.06
Post: #9
Dan Potter Wrote:On the other hand, I have been dual-compiling my game for Win32 since it was first created, so it's very likely just fine. How's that for a "double life"? Wink

*gasp* First we find out that Apple has been secretly making x86 versions of everything, and now you too, Dan!?!

NO!!!!!!!!!

The brains and fingers behind Malarkey Software (plus caretaker of the world's two brattiest felines).
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 2002.08
Post: #10
Yeah, I've moved over to Xcode 2.1 too. Tried to import the CW project at first but it just wouldn't work right so I created a new one and added all the files manually. Was easy.
Now if I only could figure out why I get this ___initialize underfined symbol error.

KenD

CodeBlender Software - http://www.codeblender.com
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2005.01
Post: #11
Malarkey Wrote:*gasp* First we find out that Apple has been secretly making x86 versions of everything, and now you too, Dan!?!

NO!!!!!!!!!

Heheh Smile Let me just twirl my evil-parallel-universe goatee here...

I actually made an x86 port of my Dreamcast OS a while back. Weird but fun.

Cryptic Allusion Games / Cryptic Allusion, LLC
http://www.cagames.com/
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 133
Joined: 2008.05
Post: #12
I just installed 2.1, seems to be ok. Have to do a little moving around of files because of the different build folders, but that's ok because it'll probably be easier in the end. I haven't tried building anything other than a development version, have to borrow another computer from a friend to check out all that. It says it'll build for pre-Tiger too, which should be cool. I wonder what kind of insight it'll give on if it'll actually run on the previous OSX's though.

You're also right about that stricter C++ on gcc 4.0. I really don't like that I had to go in and switch a lot of char*'s to const char*'s, even though the function never altered the string sent in. But whatever, should be exciting finding all the bugs in this version.

edit: Nevermind, it's a piece of shit. Way to go on breaking the debugger, I mean I never needed a working breakpoint. But at least I can play a beep when you're supposed to give me a ******* breakpoint.
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #13
What about external libraries that need to be compiled on the command line? I skimmed over the universal binary programing guide and I didn't really see how you'd handle this.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2005.01
Post: #14
I've got a friend that's figured it out. More or less you have to add this to your CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS:

Code:
-arch i386 -I/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/include -L/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/lib

Cryptic Allusion Games / Cryptic Allusion, LLC
http://www.cagames.com/
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #15
Dan Potter Wrote:I've got a friend that's figured it out. More or less you have to add this to your CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS:

Code:
-arch i386 -I/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/include -L/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/lib

But will that build only the x86 version? Say you needed to include libxyz in a project. Is it possible to build a universal libxyz.a that way, or do archives not work like that?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply