This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers 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] |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:So, to get this straight, you're not so much proposing support for inter-op as you are advocating a clear separation between 32- and 64-bit versions to help people "see" what's wrong when they try to mix the two inappropriately?Another, more development oriented downside is the fact that we have to introduce the cyg64 DLL prefix, which, as far as I remember from the discussion in 2011, breaks libtool and potentially configury and/or Makefiles of a couple of packages.It would break every build system used to build libraries, as well as programs which dlopen() prefixed libraries, of which there are many. I assure you that it's a *very* big deal.Sigh, yes, I noticed that already myself. I didn't take that serious two years ago since it sounded easy to fix.
My argument for cyg64 prefix was that there will be those that try to do a mix and making it easily identifiable which DLL was actually causing a problem.
Again, because people will do it.Ok, so far we have three voices for keeping 32 and 64 bit separate, one voice for mixing them, and one being very unsure.
Any more input?Any way for the 64bit DLL to take a different code path for 32bit executables?
$0.02 Ryan
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |