RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
Fri Jul 1 19:56:00 GMT 2011
On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 07:51:53PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul 1 12:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> [coming into the discussion late after vacation]
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:21:53PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Jun 28 12:35, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 2:59 PM, JonY wrote:
>> >> >> - What name should the 64 bit DLL have?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think they should still use the "cyg" prefix, the libtool people was
>> >> > against it when I suggested using a new prefix for 64bit mingw.
>> >> Not /this/ libtool person. I would LIKE to be able to distinguish
>> >> between 32bit and 64bit DLLs on both cygwin and mingw. I'd support a
>> >> change to libtool for cygwin64 DLLs to have an alternate prefix
>> >> (cyg64*?), and (if it's not too late, horse/barn situation) I'd also
>> >> support a similar change for mingw64.
>> >cyg64 sounds like a good idea to me. It would be a good way to allow
>> >to reside 64 and 32 bit stuff in the same /bin dir.
>> I like the cyg64 too but it is, as always a shame that we can't put
>> the 32-bit DLLs in /usr/lib32 and 64-bit DLLs in /usr/lib64.
>And, while we're at it, I'm still missing an explanation why cyg64 is an
>even worse problem than the cyg prefix. The cyg prefix solved a
>problem. The cyg64 prefix would solve another problem. Libtool and
>other packages will adapt, they did that all the years. Today it seems
>like no problem at all to create a package providing shared libs on
>Cygwin. Why should that be worse with another prefix for 64 bit Cygwin
>Btw., if people don't like the looks of cyg64, I could also live with
>some simple cygx, cygxx, xcyg, or so, without a number.
Ditto. I just think we, unfortunately, need to specifically label these
More information about the Cygwin-developers