This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
On Jan 19 14:25, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I read me through the mail-archive to get an overview of discussion.
>
> 2012/1/19 JonY :
> > On 1/19/2012 20:38, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Jan 19 12:21, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >>> On 01/19/2012 12:19 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. is probably acceptable by gcc upstream. ÂGoogling around,
> >>>> I find precedent in other compilers for something like that.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, I meant 4., the pragma.
> >>
> >> Understood. ÂWhat I mean with "upstream" here is not gcc, though.
> >>
> >> Upstream is the Mingw64 project in the first place. ÂIs it acceptable
> >> for Mingw64 to adapt the Windows header files to a LP64 compiler? ÂAnd
> >> if so, which solution is preferred?
> >>
> >>
> >> Corinna
>
> Well, as more I think about the #pragma-approach vs abstracting types
> in platform-headers, I come to the conclusion that the latter might be
> the more sane approach here.
> By this switch, we might get in troubles for C++'s name mangling, for
> debugging info in some corner-cases, and such constency issues as
> shown in my first reply.
> So IMHO the way to go would be to abstract types in platform-headers
> for LP64/LLP64. Obviously our platform-headers are right now made for
> LLP64 and ILP32, as those are the official existing ABIs for IA
> Windows.
> So it is doable, and mingw-w64 would be willing to support such a request.
Oh, good! I assume you read all of the thread so far? If we come to
a conclusion how to do it, I'd be willing to do the ground work.
Did you see http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2012-01/msg00023.html?
The extra header file is one possible approach I can think of.
Another way to do it would be to drop all `long' and `int' types in
favor of fixed-size types from stdint.h, int32_t and uint32_t.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat