RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
Tue Jun 28 20:30:00 GMT 2011
On Jun 28 21:58, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> 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.
> >>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 systems.
> 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.
The original idea to keep the DLLs in /bin was to allow running Cygwin
applications from a non-Cygwin process without hassle. A typical
example is CMD. You can simply chdir to C:\cygwin\bin and run `ls'. If
/lib contains all the DLLs, this will break unless C:\cygwin\lib is in
Also, you can't just create a bash shortcut on the desktop, unless you
really know what you're doing (set the start directory in the shortcut
to C:\cygwin\lib). When moving the DLLs out of /bin, you add some new
hurdle to using Cygwin.
Without this problem, or if we decide to ignore this problem, I would be
all for moving DLLs to /lib or /lib64.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-developers