On Jul 7 10:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:43:49PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Ok, that's something I can live with. I don't understand the notion to > >keep _WIN32_WINNT at 0x0400 anyway. The idea of this value is to be set > >manually if I *don't* want modern functions, but the default should be > >to allow *all* function so it should be at least set to 0x0601 at > >present. I don't see why using w32api should be different from using > >recent MS headers. But, never mind, that's not the point of this > >thread. > > It sorta is if we decide to just go with the mingw64 stuff.
The important question for me is, can Cygwin be built using the w32api based on the mingw64 sources? > I agree with your observations though. Both projects seem to think that using the LCD is the way to go, unfortunately. It's just a different one. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
