RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

Andy Koppe andy.koppe@gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 05:29:00 GMT 2011

On 28 June 2011 20:51, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 21:21 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jun 28 12:35, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> > 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.
> Sorry, but please trust me, this is a BAD idea.  We do NOT want to open
> that proverbial can of worms.
>> It would be a good way to allow to reside 64 and 32 bit stuff in the
>> same /bin dir.
> Can *someone* tell me why this is absolutely necessary?  I have yet to
> hear a single reason that wouldn't be solved by supporting parallel
> installations like we did with 1.5-to-1.7.

1.7 was a complete distro from early on, due to binary backward
compatibility and the unionfs with 1.5. A parallel 1.5 wasn't needed
to run 1.5 stuff, only to build it.

This wouldn't be the case with a pure 64-bit Cygwin. As soon as you
needed any tool not yet available in 64-bit, you'd need to switch back
to 32-bit. Trying to mix them by sticking both in the path isn't gonna
work well, due to the same DLLs appearing in both distros' /bin
directories, so the wrong one is bound to be picked up somewhere.
(Incidentally, the /bin vs /bin64 scheme would have the same problem.)
Even if that did work, the separate root directories would make for a
very "interesting" user experience.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list