This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?


On Jun 28 13:00, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 12:51 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >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.
> 
> Also, in 5 years when nobody is running 32 bit windows, will
> everybody still be happy with all these 64s in their paths and
> filenames?

Does anybody complain about /lib64 and /usr/lib64 on Linux?

Also, I don't see a reason to disallow running non-distro 32 bit Cygwin
apps on a 64 bit system.  Why does Linux allow it?  Why should this be
a non-issue for Cygwin?

> Coinstalled trees make sense to me, c;\cygwin and
> c:\cygwin64 for example.  And while assumptions are being
> challenged, do DLLs really need to have a cyg prefix?

Yes.  Non-Cygwin DLLs using the same name as Cygwin DLLs exist, but they
won't work under Cygwin.  For example, there's a native libz.dll.  If
that's also the name of the Cygwin DLL it's just a matter of $PATH if a
Cygwin executable loading libz.dll crashes.  That's why it has been
decided many years ago that Cygwin DLLs should use another prefix than
"lib" to avoid collisions with existing native DLLs.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]