On Jul 7 21:17, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 7/7/2010 8:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jul 7 08:08, Charles Wilson wrote: > >> I hope I have summed up the various competing proposals fairly, and that > >> this edition of my patented War and Peace emails helps move the > >> discussion along to a conclusion. > > > > Ok, I'm sufficiently confused now. So, here are a few questions. > > > > - Why do we need two different mingw's again? What are the merits of > > having mingw32 *and* mingw64-32? > > mingw32 and mingw64-32 are different. > [...]
Ok, I'm not sure I get all this. I have no objections against having three mingw cross compilers, provided they are sufficently kept separate. I'm sure you guys will create the best possible solution here. I also do not care for the mingw headers and libs (mingw-runtime) which could or should be kept in the same tree as the cross compilers. I do care for w32api, but that's already in another mail... Corinna