RE: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

RE: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

[Matt Seitz (matseitz)]

> From: Cygwin-L: On Behalf
> Of marco atzeri
> 
> Until we work and deploy a 64bit cygwin1.dll the idea to build any 64 bit
> cygwin program is pure academic and not very useful.
> 
> If you want to propose patches for 64 bit cygwin cygwin-developers is the
> right mailing list.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  That's exactly what I was trying to suggest:  if someone wants a 64-bit Cygwin package, they should start by building such a package themselves, including any necessary changes to cygwin1.dll.  Once you've got a working example, bring your results and patches to the maintainers.

Re: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:15:24PM -0700, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>> From: Cygwin-L: On Behalf
>> Of marco atzeri
>> 
>> Until we work and deploy a 64bit cygwin1.dll the idea to build any 64 bit
>> cygwin program is pure academic and not very useful.
>> 
>> If you want to propose patches for 64 bit cygwin cygwin-developers is the
>> right mailing list.
>
>Sorry if I wasn't clear.  That's exactly what I was trying to suggest:
>if someone wants a 64-bit Cygwin package, they should start by building
>such a package themselves, including any necessary changes to
>cygwin1.dll.  Once you've got a working example, bring your results and
>patches to the maintainers.

No, sorry.  Please don't do this.  Something this major requires serious
coordination, not a 10,000 line patch.

So, if someone seriously wants to do this then join the cygwin-developers
list to discuss it.  Don't start a discussion unless you want to actually
do some work though.  We're not keenly interested in your ideas unless you
are thoroughly versed in how Cygwin works now and are willing to work to
getting things working with a 64-bit compiler.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

[marco atzeri]

On 5/22/2012 9:06 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>> From: Cygwin-L On Behalf Of Warren Young
>>
>> I would say that the vast majority of the packages in the Cygwin
>> distribution could not reasonably make use of 64-bit data spaces.
>>
>> However, one of your arguments in this thread cuts both ways: the fact
>> that there are a few packages that reasonably can do so means you cannot
>> say "we don't need it".
>
> If someone wants a 64-bit version of a packages in the distribution, then how about they build a 64-bit version of the package and report the results?  That would give the distribution maintainers actual data about the costs and benefits.
>
>

Could you please stop this discussion ?

Until we work and deploy a 64bit cygwin1.dll the idea to build
any 64 bit cygwin program is pure academic and not very useful.

If you want to propose patches for 64 bit cygwin
cygwin-developers is the right mailing list.


Regards
Marco


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

[Cliff Hones]

On 22/05/2012 20:06, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>> From: Cygwin-L On Behalf Of Warren Young
>> I would say that the vast majority of the packages in the Cygwin
>> distribution could not reasonably make use of 64-bit data spaces.
>>
>> However, one of your arguments in this thread cuts both ways: the fact
>> that there are a few packages that reasonably can do so means you cannot
>> say "we don't need it".
> 
> If someone wants a 64-bit version of a packages in the distribution, then how about they build a 64-bit version of the package and report the results?  That would give the distribution maintainers actual data about the costs and benefits.

Hear hear.  Well said.  Perhaps we can drop this tedious thread now,
or else TITTTL.  IMHO it has shown rather lamentable knowledge of
both compiler technology and RISC/CISC architecture from at least one
responder.

-- Cliff


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

[Matt Seitz (matseitz)]

> From: Cygwin-L On Behalf Of Warren Young
> 
> I would say that the vast majority of the packages in the Cygwin
> distribution could not reasonably make use of 64-bit data spaces.
> 
> However, one of your arguments in this thread cuts both ways: the fact
> that there are a few packages that reasonably can do so means you cannot
> say "we don't need it".

If someone wants a 64-bit version of a packages in the distribution, then how about they build a 64-bit version of the package and report the results?  That would give the distribution maintainers actual data about the costs and benefits.