On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:37:19AM -0800, Stephan Mueller wrote: >Can someone elaborate on exactly which APIs have changed incompatibly >(in 64-bit Windows)? > >I'm only mildly familiar with the 64-bit story, but my understanding is >that the the 64-bit APIs are basically the same as 32-bit (with the >natural widening of types) but given that the 64-bit API is 'new' in >that there's no legacy (shipped, binary) code base to support, this is >probably the best time to make API changes (in 64-bit) that repair bad >design decisions and bad interface bugs and so made earlier (in 32-bit >API, or maybe even 16-bit). > >Regardless, how does this affect Cygwin at all? The 32-bit subsystem on >64-bit Windows OSes should run 32-bit apps with no semantic changes -- >that's its job, and I would be surprised if the behaviour of any 32-bit >APIs was gratuitously different (although it's possible there are bugs >-- worth reporting if that's the case). > >If you're trying to compile cygwin itself for 64-bit, well, you may need >to make some cygwin source changes with #ifdefs, yes -- is that the >objection here?
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the iffy decisions that cygwin makes just break on the 64-bit Windows. It's not Microsoft's fault if they change an undocumented behavior. Cygwin relies on a few undocumented-but-consistent behaviors to do some of its magic. I think the only problem is that Cygwin probably just needs to be debugged to see what's going on. If someone wants to send me a nice 64 bit system running WinXP 64 (or whatever it's called), I'll see what I can do. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/