xcode project unsavable



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/09/2011 at 08:27, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    User Information:
    Cinema 4D Version:   13 
    Platform:   Windows  ;   Mac OSX  ; 
    Language(s) :     C++  ;

    ---------
    Hi,

    I'm not very familiar with xcode and mac. I use it only for compiling the mac version and I'm always happy, when it's completed.

    I've adapted a new cinema4dsdk xcode project to my plugin. It compiled successful. BUT: when I want to quit xcode, it says:

    The project file project.pbxproj for project "myproject.xcodeproj" is not writable and cannot be saved. Your changes will be lost if you close the project. You may need to SCM edit the project file to gain writability.

    I can't find any file called project.pbxproj on my mac and I don't know what "SCM edit" means.

    Can anybody help?



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/09/2011 at 08:42, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    ok, I've got it. It's inside of the xcode file and only visible when right-clicking and choose "view package contents". Can't understand, why it's protected by default. (?)



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/09/2011 at 09:57, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Originally posted by xxxxxxxx

    Hi,

    I'm not very familiar with xcode and mac. I use it only for compiling the mac version and I'm always happy, when it's completed.

    Had to chuckle when I read this. I'm in exactly the same position and I, too, am always happy when xcode successfully compiles something. Because IME xcode is a lot less predictable than Visual Studio and often seems to find something to moan about, even if it didn't on the previous compile.

    Steve



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/09/2011 at 12:54, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Me too, I just installed my first XCode and I couldn't stop laughing about the three big buttons on the top. I had hoped, maybe the development environment is free of the "let me remove all buttons for you" philosophy from Apple ... I am still smiling ...

    But I also got a question about it, how is that with 32/64 Bit builds on the Mac? On Win I just put the cdl and cdl64 library into the same folder, on the Mac?

    Thank you,
    maxx



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/09/2011 at 15:59, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Howdy,

    Hehe, I'm just the opposite. I feel very comfortable with Xcode, and feel very tense when I have to compile in MSVC for Windows. LOL

    Originally posted by xxxxxxxx

    ...But I also got a question about it, how is that with 32/64 Bit builds on the Mac? On Win I just put the cdl and cdl64 library into the same folder, on the Mac?...

    On Mac, you compile a universal binary, so one .dylib file has both 32 and 64 bit versions in it plus PPC and Intel. I've always wondered why Windows doesn't do fat binaries so that one file works in both 32 and 64 bits?

    Adios,
    Cactus Dan



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/09/2011 at 16:08, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Originally posted by xxxxxxxx

    On Mac, you compile a universal binary, so one .dylib file has both 32 and 64 bit versions in it plus PPC and Intel. I've always wondered why Windows doesn't do fat binaries so that one file works in both 32 and 64 bits?

    Aha, didn't know that. For me a reason would be, that the dylib then always is nearly as twice as big as it has to be. As I do not run a hybrid 32/64-Bit system ;), it seems a bit overheadish to me :)

    Cheers,
    maxx



  • THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED

    On 11/09/2011 at 16:19, xxxxxxxx wrote:

    Howdy,

    Well, the size on the HD may end up the same whether you have 2 files or one.

    The way the Mac OS handles fat binaries is:

    The Mac OS X kernel recognizes a fat binary, parses the header, and chooses the most appropriate architecture (if there's one) binary to execute from among those contained in the fat file.

    ... so it doesn't really load the entire file to run. It only loads that part of the fat binary file that it needs to run on a given architecture. 😉

    Adios,
    Cactus Dan


Log in to reply