This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: gcc4: next release

On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea.  However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
two different versions of w32api around.  It's one target, so we should
have one set of headers only.  Right?  Wrong?  None of that?

Unfortunately, it sounds like we've stepped into the middle of a dispute between the mingw folks and the mingw64 folks. Maybe the best thing for us to do would be to decide to use only one or the other but not both.


Here are some of the technical issues.

The C startup ABI between the 2 is also different enough that linking from one compiler to another isn't recommended, though I haven't tried recently.

This is also true for C++, where preference to dw2, but mingw-w64 uses sjlj for both 32bit and 64bit.

As for mingw-w64 headers API, it does not support anything lower than XP, Win2K is not supported, different from's Win9X compatibility.

Compiler feature wise is also different, hence the "w64" vendor key to turn on some of GCC's features, especially the unicode C startup.

mingw-w64 is relatively new compared to's history, so obviously the latter has a much larger user base.

For compatibility purposes, if we do have mingw-w64 toolchain, there should also be a separate toolchain for, if we don't want to get bombarded with "Why does the new MinGW GCC not work?" questions.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]