This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Resurrect discussion: Mixing 32 and 64 bit distro
On Feb 15 11:57, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 11:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 15 04:40, Yaakov wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:22:26 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > 1. Revert all toolchain changes which change the DLL prefix from
> >> > "cyg" to "cyg64".
> >>
> >> Revert.
> >>
> >> > 2. Rename the Cygwin DLL back from cyg64win1.dll to cygwin1.dll.
> >> >
> >> > This is probably purely a matter of taste. It has nothing to do with
> >> > point 1. We can keep the name of theCygwin DLL without compromising
> >> > the "cyg" prefix elsewhere. Actually, it even simplifies the
> >> > recognition of a 64 bit Cygwin process at spawn/exec time.
> >>
> >> It still makes dlopen()ing the Cygwin DLL -- a technique which is used
> >> by Mono, Python ctypes, Ruby FFI, JNA, etc., and LD_PRELOAD hacks (among
> >> others) -- more complicated. I'd prefer to revert.
> >>
> >> > 3. Revert the path to link libs from "${prefix}/lib64" to "${prefix}/lib".
> >> >
> >> > I'm actually not quite sure about that. The lib64 path is in the
> >> > toolchain now and it appears to work nicely. Apparently it also
> >> > works fine for 64 bit Linux. In conjunction with point 1, if we
> >> > ever decide that we yet need interoperability with 32 bit Cygwin
> >> > processes, keeping the lib path to lib64 would help to integrate
> >> > both worlds. What is the problem with lib64 again?
> >>
> >> Not so sure about that first point; while ld (and w32api) wanted lib64,
> >> gcc wouldn't recognize it, at least not with a sys-root. While
> >> doable, it does mean adjustments to cygport and some .cygport files,
> >> as well as patches (available in Fedora and other distros) for some
> >> packages which aren't lib64 aware. If we don't need it, why bother?
> >>
> >> As for the future, I think we already agreed that trying to manage a
> >> fully multiarch distro isn't feasible with setup/upset. If we're
> >> talking only about multiarch-ing Cygwin itself, I think a lib32/lib
> >> combination would do.
> >
> > Ok, let's go the full way.
> >
> > You *are* all aware that renaming the DLL back to cygwin1.dll means
> > that, afterwards, none of the currently existing binaries will work
> > anymore, right?
>
> Fine by me. It would be silly to demand binary (or source) backward
> compatibilty at this point.
Right, but this means I will not be able to use 64 bit mintty and tcsh
for at least... a few hours. You don't know what you're asking!!!
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat