RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

Yaakov (Cygwin/X) yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net
Tue Jun 28 05:23:00 GMT 2011

On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 05:28 +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Can you comment on how difficult it would be to deal with lib64 and
> particularly bin64 (due to DLLs having to go into bin*)?

lib64 is doable, the widely-used build systems support it, but a
significant number of packages still require patching or argument
overriding to use it.  Fortunately, both Fedora and Gentoo
use /usr/lib64 on x86_64, so we can benefit from their work.

OTOH, bin64 is not even a FHS-compliant directory.  

> To avoid having to port a large part of the distro before 64-bit
> Cygwin becomes usable, and for more seamless compatibility with users'
> existing 32-bit binaries and sources than you'd get with a separate
> Cygwin32 install.
> Do those benefits outweigh the costs? I don't know.

I strongly doubt it.  Once you get past porting the toolchain and
lower-level stuff, everything beyond that should be more-or-less a
rebuild.  (Famous last words :-)

As long as 32-bit and 64-bit installs could exist side-by-side (like we
had with the 1.5-to-1.7 transition), then I really don't see it being an


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list