RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 07:51:53PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul  1 12:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> [coming into the discussion late after vacation]
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:21:53PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Jun 28 12:35, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 2:59 PM, JonY wrote:
>> >> >>   - What name should the 64 bit DLL have?
>> >> > 
>> >> > I think they should still use the "cyg" prefix, the libtool people was
>> >> > against it when I suggested using a new prefix for 64bit mingw.
>> >> 
>> >> Not /this/ libtool person.  I would LIKE to be able to distinguish
>> >> between 32bit and 64bit DLLs on both cygwin and mingw.  I'd support a
>> >> change to libtool for cygwin64 DLLs to have an alternate prefix
>> >> (cyg64*?), and (if it's not too late, horse/barn situation) I'd also
>> >> support a similar change for mingw64.
>> >
>> >cyg64 sounds like a good idea to me.  It would be a good way to allow
>> >to reside 64 and 32 bit stuff in the same /bin dir.
>> 
>> I like the cyg64 too but it is, as always a shame that we can't put
>> the 32-bit DLLs in /usr/lib32 and 64-bit DLLs in /usr/lib64.
>
>And, while we're at it, I'm still missing an explanation why cyg64 is an
>even worse problem than the cyg prefix.  The cyg prefix solved a
>problem.  The cyg64 prefix would solve another problem.  Libtool and
>other packages will adapt, they did that all the years.  Today it seems
>like no problem at all to create a package providing shared libs on
>Cygwin.  Why should that be worse with another prefix for 64 bit Cygwin
>DLLs?
>
>Btw., if people don't like the looks of cyg64, I could also live with
>some simple cygx, cygxx, xcyg, or so, without a number.

Ditto.  I just think we, unfortunately, need to specifically label these
dlls.

cgf