Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

[Ryan Johnson <ryan dot johnson at cs dot utoronto dot ca>]

On 08/07/2011 5:56 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul  8 03:57, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > Did I miss anything?  It seems that Windows already skips by "wrong-bit"
> > DLLs, regardless which is in CWD or first in PATH.
> Thanks for performing these tests.  I still have to see it with my own
> eyes :}
>
> OK, let's assume DLLs with the wrong bit-ness are skipped on CreateProcess
> as well as on LoadLibrary.  What are the implications for us?
>
> - If we use the same "cyg" prefix, we have to split the /bin directory
>    into a 32 and a 64 bit bin directory, or
>
> - if we stick to a single /bin directory, we have to use another prefix
>    like "cyg64", or
>
> - we have to put the DLLs into a separate directory like /usr/lib64.
>    Separate directory has the problem that it always has to be in $PATH,
>    which is not such a good idea, IMHO.
Given that Windows' loader is actually sane, I think I would favor 
having two bin dirs.*** Less work for toolchain maintainers, and people 
are already used to the idea that not all binaries live in the same 
place. Whether we should do bin64 or cygwin64/bin I don't know, tho. The 
latter might be LSFTEU.

*** assuming LoadLibrary is also sane, and that dlopen/LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
can cope.

Ryan