On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:17:11PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 08:48:18PM -0400, Francis Litterio wrote: >>> Dave Korn wrote: >>>>> Perhaps this can be "fixed" for any non-x86 Cygwin port? >>>> The very concept of a non-x86 Cygwin port is meaningless nonsense. You >>>> need to do a bit more homework. I suggest you start by reading the >>>> first sentence on the first page at http://cygwin.com/. >>> Doesn't Windows Server 2003 run on Intel's Itanium processor? >>> Technically, that's a non-x86 Windows platform. >>Would it help if I vowed not to port Cygwin to the Itanium? > >What?!?! No Itanium port of Cygwin? Now what are we supposed to do, >huh? > >(Sorry for co-opting this thread for my own purposes but as desperate >as this ABI issue is, the fact that Cygwin will not be ported to >Itanium is, well, catastrophic! Chris must be stopped... or started... >or something!!!)
I suppose we could consider it as long as we used an ABI that had no compile/link/load/runtime requirements. Cygwin would run fine on the system in that case. You'd just copy the DLL and all of the binaries to the Itanium and, well, there they'd be. Right on the system. Working as advertised. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
