This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] setup: port to 64-bit, part 1
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 02:09:58 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 08:39:45PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I think it's easier to present the choice on the web page rather than
> >in setup. The name of the tool, setup64, is a wonderful clue as to
> >what this version installs.
> It's likely easier for a programmer to pepper setup.exe with rote
> changes for x86_64 than to add logic to detect the OS and offer the user
> choices. I don't think it can be argued that it's easier for the user
> since, if setup.exe is modified, they will still be presented with the a
> similar choice but they will know exactly what their options are.
> I think it is very possible that some users will not know if they are
> running a 64-bit OS or not. I, myself, have been confused on both Linux
> and Windows when I had a 32-bit OS installed but thought I was running
IIUC, this would mean:
1) a new page just past the intro, to select 32- or 64-bit if both are
available, which would set a boolean.
2) the name of .bz2/.ini would depend on said boolean.
3) all calls to Reg*KeyEx() would need REG_WOW64_*KEY flags depending on
4) a command-line option to bypass the bitness selection page.
Am I missing anything?
> >Second, you're missing an important point: WOW64 has become an optional
> >component since Windows 2012. Requiring to have WOW64 installed just
> >because we neglected to port the installer as well, is lame. At the
> >very least we should provide a 64 bit installer as well, even if it's
> >not used by default.
> I was vaguely aware of this but I don't believe that it is common. I
> searched for "cygwin wow64 missing" and didn't see anything.
OTOH Windows Server 2012 is still fairly new.
> If we start to see a number of people complaining then I would be
> certainly be convinced that a 64-bit setup.exe is needed. I don't think
> we have to limit ourselves out of the gate for this, in my opinion,
> corner case.
> >>Fifth objection: "This is a lot of work!!! It's easier to just port
> >>setup.exe to 64-bit!!!"
> >>Response: That's debatable.
> >Yaakov already ported setup to 64 bit. Only the autoload stuff is
> >missing and that can simply be deleted anyway.
> Ok, I thought there were more patches coming. If the #ifdef x86_64's in
> Yaakov's code are actually not going to be there because of legacy going
> away then those points are invalid.
So OK to apply just the type-safety parts (install.cc, regex/regcomp.c,
> Btw, Yaakov, IsWindowsNT in the code should be completely eliminated.
Yes, I'm already on it.