RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

[Kai Tietz]

Hi,

So I read me through the mail-archive to get an overview of discussion.

2012/1/19 JonY :
> On 1/19/2012 20:38, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jan 19 12:21, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 01/19/2012 12:19 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1. is probably acceptable by gcc upstream.  Googling around,
>>>> I find precedent in other compilers for something like that.
>>>
>>> Obviously, I meant 4., the pragma.
>>
>> Understood.  What I mean with "upstream" here is not gcc, though.
>>
>> Upstream is the Mingw64 project in the first place.  Is it acceptable
>> for Mingw64 to adapt the Windows header files to a LP64 compiler?  And
>> if so, which solution is preferred?
>>
>>
>> Corinna

Well, as more I think about the #pragma-approach vs abstracting types
in platform-headers, I come to the conclusion that the latter might be
the more sane approach here.
By this switch, we might get in troubles for C++'s name mangling, for
debugging info in some corner-cases, and such constency issues as
shown in my first reply.
So IMHO the way to go would be to abstract types in platform-headers
for LP64/LLP64.  Obviously our platform-headers are right now made for
LLP64 and ILP32, as those are the official existing ABIs for IA
Windows.
So it is doable, and mingw-w64 would be willing to support such a request.

Regards,
Kai