is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance

is the host platform when we are using it to build binaries. See also: One way to avoid this complexity is to run the compilation in the host platform, so both build and host will take the same value Android Cross-building a library for Android is very similar to the previous examples, except the complexity of managing different architectures (armeabi, armeabi-v7a, x86, arm64-v8a) and the Android API edges around those said limitations. It would require a big development effort, and the compounded complexity it would induce in the codebase is a liability that will slow down future development, maintenance