RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

Thomas Wolff towo@towo.net
Tue Jun 28 19:59:00 GMT 2011

Am 28.06.2011 21:51, schrieb Charles Wilson:
> On 6/28/2011 3:33 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jun 28 12:56, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> Which means that the 64bit dlls *must* have a different name, or we
>>> can't have coexistence.  E.g.
>>> Oops.
>> Oops?
>> It's just a decision to be made, isn't it?
>>> ...
> Right, we have to decide -- my point is there isn't an easy answer that
> will have zero impact on everybody.  There are basically three choices:
>    /bin + /bin64 -- affects $PATH, implicates package naming (*). Also
>                     might affect script #! lines, and anything that calls
>                     exec*() or spawn() with a full pathname.
I have always wondered what the cyg*.dll's are doing in /bin. Not being 
a dll insider..., I may be overlooking something, but maybe it's time to 
move them over to /usr/lib and then add /usr/lib64, just as on Linux 
Oh, and if it's about the PATH, I don't think any Windows programm will 
look for a cyg*.dll, so the cygwin loading function could probably be 
hard-coded to add /usr/lib (and /usr/lib64) to the path.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list