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]

Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?


2012/1/19 Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> So I read me through the mail-archive to get an overview of discussion.
>
> 2012/1/19 JonY :
>> On 1/19/2012 20:38, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jan 19 12:21, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 01/19/2012 12:19 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. is probably acceptable by gcc upstream. ?Googling around,
>>>>> I find precedent in other compilers for something like that.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, I meant 4., the pragma.
>>>
>>> Understood. ?What I mean with "upstream" here is not gcc, though.
>>>
>>> Upstream is the Mingw64 project in the first place. ?Is it acceptable
>>> for Mingw64 to adapt the Windows header files to a LP64 compiler? ?And
>>> if so, which solution is preferred?
>>>
>>>
>>> Corinna
>
> Well, as more I think about the #pragma-approach vs abstracting types
> in platform-headers, I come to the conclusion that the latter might be
> the more sane approach here.
> By this switch, we might get in troubles for C++'s name mangling, for
By this pragma ....
> debugging info in some corner-cases, and such constency issues as
> shown in my first reply.
> So IMHO the way to go would be to abstract types in platform-headers
> for LP64/LLP64. ?Obviously our platform-headers are right now made for
> LLP64 and ILP32, as those are the official existing ABIs for IA
> Windows.
> So it is doable, and mingw-w64 would be willing to support such a request.


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