On 9/20/2010 22:53, NightStrike wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, JonY<jo...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> On 9/20/2010 22:36, Earnie wrote: >>> Kai Tietz wrote: >>>> 2010/9/20 Earnie<ear...@users.sourceforge.net>: >>>>> Cesar Strauss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Since MSYS is derived from Cygwin, one way to get 64-bit support >>>>>> for MSYS would be to add it first to Cygwin and port it to MSYS >>>>>> later. However, as this thread indicates, there is currently some >>>>>> interest on bringing 64-bit support to MSYS, while I do not have >>>>>> evidence there is a similar interest on the Cygwin front. So, it >>>>>> may make sense to do it the other way around this time (adding >>>>>> 64-bit support to MSYS first and contributing back to Cygwin >>>>>> later). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that it would make more sense "the other way around". >>>>> Since MinGW GCC is used for parts of the Cygwin/MSYS build >>>>> process, incorporation of mingw-64 into Cygwin/MSYS would also need >>>>> to take place. >>>>> >>>>> Earnie >>>> >>>> Well, AFAIU this subject about porting msys (cygwin) to x64 requires >>>> the following steps. >>>> >>>> 1.) Port the internal runtime-dll (sorry I am just knowing cygwin's >>>> name here) cygwin1.dll. As this provides the syscalls required for >>>> any later build. 2.) Port gcc/binutils to support the >>>> x86_64-*-cygwin* target. This step shouldn't be too hard, but has for >>>> sure some pitfalls 3.) Best in parallel to 2.) Porting newlib >>>> beginning from headers. >>>> >>>> After that real fun begins as all unix tools need to be ported to >>>> LLP64 ABI. >>>> >>> >>>> From what I recall newlib, the base of Cygwin's runtime, already >>> contains the necessary IA64 runtime code. The Cygwin wrappers though >>> would need to be modified to use it. And to self host a GCC that >>> targets the new Cygwin runtime would need to be built but the initial >>> work could be completed as a cross build from Linux. >>> >>> Earnie >>> >> >> Will 64bit Cygwin be LP64 or LLP64? I sure hope its the former, but I >> don't know how much thunk is needed. > > That would be a question for the cygwin people. I personally see no > reason that it wouldn't match the Win64 platform standard. >
LLP64 is going to be very painful to port Unix software that assumes LP64. Besides, Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows. Well, I have no strong opinions for this matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
