On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
> >>sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
> >>two different versions of w32api around. It's one target, so we should
> >>have one set of headers only. Right? Wrong? None of that?
> >
> >Unfortunately, it sounds like we've stepped into the middle of a dispute
> >between the mingw folks and the mingw64 folks. Maybe the best thing for
> >us to do would be to decide to use only one or the other but not both.
> >
> >cgf
> >
>
> Here are some of the technical issues.
> [...]
> As for mingw-w64 headers API, it does not support anything lower
> than XP, Win2K is not supported, different from mingw.org's Win9X
> compatibility.
How do you do that? The XP functionality is a superset of the W2K
functionality, which in turn is a superset of the NT4 functionality.
So, in theory, headers supporting XP should support any earlier
system(*).
Corinna
(*) Note that I ignore 95/98/Me deliberately since they deserve to be
forgotten.
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
