On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:22:17AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:58 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> 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. > >It does seem that there is a debate -- but I'm not part of it. My only >involvement with either the last few days is fixing cygport for >cross-compilers and cross-compiling. > >That being said, I see the technical arguments for allowing both >toolchains (provided someone steps up and packages a mingw.org version). >Mingw.org-based software is still widespread, and as JonY mentioned they >are not fully compatible. OTOH mingw-w64, besided providing the only >64bit option, also has certain advantages which warrant a 32bit version >as well.
But we're talking about the Cygwin community here. If we provide two different versions of the same thing we'll be clarifying forever. And, when I use humor after I've clarified to the same person three times in a row, we'll have a long thread about how mean I am for not answering the poor guy's question. No one wants that. I really wish Dave was here to weigh in. >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would >a cygwin1.dll built with i686-w64-cygwin (mingw-w64) toolchain be 100% >compatible with current and past releases built with i686-pc-cygwin >(mingw.org) toolchain? If not, then we need both. Is someone talking about a i686-w64-cygwin compiler? I thought this was entirely mingw. cgf
