RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
Fri Jul 8 18:06:00 GMT 2011
On Jul 8 13:52, Earnie wrote:
> Charles Wilson wrote:
> > On 7/8/2011 9:40 AM, Earnie wrote:
> >> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> - we have to put the DLLs into a separate directory like
> >>> /usr/lib64. Separate directory has the problem that it always has
> >>> to be in $PATH, which is not such a good idea, IMHO.
> >> I like this one too, if cygwin64 would add /usr/lib64 to the PATH
> >> before CreateProcess then it wouldn't be as bad an idea since the
> >> user wouldn't need to add it to PATH.
> > If you mean that 64bit exe's go into the regular /bin directory, but
> > the 64bit dlls go into bin64/, then that's bad. (Actually, even if
> > you mean all 64bit exe's and dll's go into bin64/, the same problem
> > exists).
> Uh, no, I meant 64bit DLL goto lib64/ not bin64/. I don't promote the
> use of bin64/ so yes I mean that /bin contains the executable binary.
> > That problem is, a lot of things assume that DLLs are in "../bin/"
> > relative to the $libdir -- not least of which is libtool, when it
> > populates .la files. There is support for multiple levels of '..',
> > added to help with gcc runtime dlls, but the final dir is still
> > assumed to be "bin" not "bin64". I'm sure there are also
> > applications that make similar assumptions.
> Well, shouldn't libtool search LD_LIBRARY_PATH as well as PATH for the
> DLL for Cygwin? Why should it be that much different than Linux where
> the shared libraries are never in bin/?
Something else I'm wondering about is this.
Right now the executable contains just the name of a DLL it is linked
against. Does the PE/COFF format allow to store a relative path in the
executable? Something like, say, "..\\lib64\\libfoo.dll"? If that is
possible (I have really no idea) wouldn't that allow to have the DLLs
in /usr/lib64, given that /usr/bin is in $PATH anyway?
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-developers