This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin 64bit triplet
On Feb 22 03:11, Yaakov wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Sorry, but I still don't grok it. If I run config.guess and config.sub
> > on 64 bit Linux, I get:
> >
> > $ ./config.guess
> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
> > $ ./config.sub x86_64-linux
> > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> >
> > On Cygwin:
> >
> > $ ./config.guess
> > x86_64-unknown-cygwin
> > $ ./config.sub x86_64-linux
> > x86_64-pc-cygwin
> >
> > This looks rather consistent to me. Why and how is Linux here different
> > from Cygwin?
>
> It's not different from Linux: the very fact that config.guess and
> config.sub provide two different responses for what should be the same
> system is inconsistent. But let's leave config.sub out of this for now
> though.
>
> > If Linux can live with this, why can't we?
>
> We can -- if we use x86_64-unknown-cygwin as the "canonical" triplet,
> just like Linux uses x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, since config.guess is the
> more important of the two here. (config.sub only matters if you use an
> incomplete triplet, as is customary with some embedded platforms.)
> However, right now we're using x86_64-pc-cygwin, and *that* is where
> the problem exists, so we need to choose:
>
> * x86_64-unknown-cygwin: easy to adapt (just adjust bootstrap.sh and
> cygwin.sc.in, then rebuild), naming scheme matches Linux, but doesn't
> sound/look as nice.
>
> * x86_64-pc-cygwin: sounds/looks nicer, naming scheme matches MinGW, but
> getting everything to conform to that OOTB is more work.
Last set of questions (and yes, I'm really not an expert): Why can
Fedora/RHEL use x86_64-redhat-linux as canonical triplet, and why has
Fedora/RHEL apparently no problems with that?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat