This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 9:40 AM, Earnie wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> - we have to put the DLLs into a separate directory like
>>> /usr/lib64. Separate directory has the problem that it always has
>>> to be in $PATH, which is not such a good idea, IMHO.
>>>
>>
>> I like this one too, if cygwin64 would add /usr/lib64 to the PATH
>> before CreateProcess then it wouldn't be as bad an idea since the
>> user wouldn't need to add it to PATH.
>
> If you mean that 64bit exe's go into the regular /bin directory, but
> the 64bit dlls go into bin64/, then that's bad. (Actually, even if
> you mean all 64bit exe's and dll's go into bin64/, the same problem
> exists).
>
Uh, no, I meant 64bit DLL goto lib64/ not bin64/. I don't promote the
use of bin64/ so yes I mean that /bin contains the executable binary.
> That problem is, a lot of things assume that DLLs are in "../bin/"
> relative to the $libdir -- not least of which is libtool, when it
> populates .la files. There is support for multiple levels of '..',
> added to help with gcc runtime dlls, but the final dir is still
> assumed to be "bin" not "bin64". I'm sure there are also
> applications that make similar assumptions.
>
Well, shouldn't libtool search LD_LIBRARY_PATH as well as PATH for the
DLL for Cygwin? Why should it be that much different than Linux where
the shared libraries are never in bin/?
> Not insurmountable, but something to put into consideration of costs,
> as we make this decision.
Ack.
Earnie