I have a bunch of libraries that I need to link against that I installed via macports. They are 64-bit libraries. I'm working on an application written with QT Creator and the .pro is set up. I downloaded the QT SDK for Mac OS X, but it is 32-bit and so the compiled code won't link against the 64-bit binaries that I got from macports. Ok. So I downloaded the QT SDK source and built from source using -arch x86_64. Now I have a 64-bit version of the SDK (I think) but it didn't build a QT Creator app.

I need to know one of four things:


  1. I'm guessing that a simple make command will convince the QT SDK to build the creator for me. If this is true, then what is the command (make creator?).

  2. The easiest way to get MacPorts to redownload the libraries that I installed with a 32-bit version (I keep seeing a "+universal" mentioned, but I haven't seen it on a line, and simply calling ports +universal install XYZ doesn't seem to work--perhaps I need to uninstall and reinstall the package?). Also, is this a stupid idea?

  3. Someone who actually has a prebuilt 64-bit QT SDK installer so I don't have to mess with this. It is ridiculous that QT doesn't already have this available, in my opinion--SL has been out since, what, last August?

  4. I don't understand why I can't simply put a "compile-for-64-bit stupid" command directly into the QT pro file and have it build. There isn't really a reason why a compiler compiled in 32-bits couldn't compile to 64-bits is there?

  1. Qt Creator is available on the bottom-left corner of the Qt Downloads page. You will likely have to compile that from source if you want the 64-bit version. Use the -arch x86_64 flag or -cocoa flag, as advised at the Qt Labs Blog.

  2. Recompiling ports using the +universal variants would require uninstalling and reinstalling the ports in question, along with their dependencies. Decide if you really need 32-bit if you can get the Qt SDK and Qt Creator working with 64-bit.

| improve this answer | |
  • Appreciated, sir. Totally missed the downloads farther down in the small print--only looked at the bigger text. – user27611 Feb 9 '10 at 14:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy