From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17074 invoked by alias); 21 May 2012 22:50:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 17061 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2012 22:50:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from plane.gmane.org (HELO plane.gmane.org) (80.91.229.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 May 2012 22:50:09 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SWbQT-0003Xs-Sc for cygwin@cygwin.com; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:50:05 +0200 Received: from 5520-maca-inet1-outside.broadcom.com ([216.31.211.11]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:50:05 +0200 Received: from Andrew by 5520-maca-inet1-outside.broadcom.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:50:05 +0200 To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <70952A932255A2489522275A628B97C31348C437@xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00461.txt.bz2 On 5/21/2012 3:43 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > On 5/21/2012 3:15 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: >> I don't think Warren's note said there was a 4GB 32-bit executable. >> I think it said a 4GB 32-bit executable would be the worst case >> scenario for 64-bit executable size bloat. > It might be. What I was saying was if it doesn't exist (and probably > isn't likely to exist anytime soon) then I don't personally worry > about it. YMMV. >>> Well have you considered the following: "Anyway I think I'm >>> done with this topic"? I didn't think so. >> Are you saying Warren should not post a response to the mailing list, >> just because you personally are no longer interested in the discussion? > No I'm saying he should response my post, citing me as if to expect > and answer from me when I am no longer interested in the topic. I mean: He should *not* response to my post... -- Andrew DeFaria Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector. -- 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