2010/7/7 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>:
> 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(*).
To clarify this point. It is in fact possible to build NT4/Windows
2000 32-bit applications by mingw-w64 header-set and runtime, too. We
default to XP as default windows version. For windows OSes older then
XP, we don't provide active support (until now - obviously for 64-bit
OS has to be XP or newer).
>
> Corinna
>
> (*) Note that I ignore 95/98/Me deliberately since they deserve to be
> forgotten.
Agreed ;)
Regards,
Kai
--
| (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
| (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help
| (")_(") him gain world domination
