Re: [B2-devel] Re: Intel Mac

[Gwenole B. <gb....@fr...>]

Hi,

> 	Tanaka-san, I will eventually get an Intel Mac and port
> my OS X port of BasiliskII to it, but I have no timeframe
> (and wasn't really planning on buying another Mac yet).

Unfortunately, I have no plan on buying an Intel Mac either (no use of 
it). And, I am too used to receiving hardware from constructors at the 
office when they want me to {,sup}port anything. ;-)

So, in the mean time, I was squatting Toshi's iMac.

> 	Devs, I have been thinking about how to simplify the
> whole B2 vs SheepShaver effort lately. Would it be possible
> to have the emulation part (whether it be SheepShaver,
> B2 uae, or B2 with classic support) encapsulated in
> a shared library?

This looks like a difficult approach to me. Basilisk II and SheepShaver 
share most of the same source code but resulting compiled code and 
behaviour are different. Besides, if you turn non-main() parts into a 
shared library, you will have name clashes between B2 and SheepShaver, 
especially when you would try to load both at a time (your 1 68k & 1 
ppc Mac scenario).

Universal binaries look simpler to achieve, at the expense of extra 
hackage in the configure scripts.

Why not build Basilisk II and SheepShaver as regular binaries and have 
a common UI that would fork/exec/embed the right process into the UI's 
window? IIRC, GTK+ allows this kind of thing but I don't know for 
Cocoa. You will also need some IPC to communicate state changes 
(power-off, pause, etc.). RealPlayer works this way, at least in Linux.