Re: Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

[coming into the discussion late after vacation]
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:21:53PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jun 28 12:35, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> On 2:59 PM, JonY wrote:
>> >>   - What name should the 64 bit DLL have?
>> > 
>> > I think they should still use the "cyg" prefix, the libtool people was
>> > against it when I suggested using a new prefix for 64bit mingw.
>> 
>> 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.  It would be a good way to allow
>to reside 64 and 32 bit stuff in the same /bin dir.

I like the cyg64 too but it is, as always a shame that we can't put
the 32-bit DLLs in /usr/lib32 and 64-bit DLLs in /usr/lib64.

And, also, while I agree that 64-bit Cygwin is long overdue, I have
noticed lately that many of the programs I grab for Windows are still
32-bit.  So, while all modern systems may be 64-bit, I don't think
32-bit applications are going away anytime soon.

cgf