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 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?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat