On 23 September 2010 14:38, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows.
No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It would
effectively be Interix with a particularly slow fo
On 9/23/2010 21:38, NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 21 September 2010 12:51, Earnie wrote:
>>> Andy Koppe wrote:
> Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows.
No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It w
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 21 September 2010 12:51, Earnie wrote:
>> Andy Koppe wrote:
Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows.
>>>
>>> No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It would
>>> effectively be Interix with a particu
Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 22 September 2010 12:54, Earnie wrote:
>> Andy Koppe wrote:
MSYS on the other hand has no paying customers and the changes
there only need to be approved by the FOSS users who code and
maintain it.
>>>
>>> So are you saying that MSYS might become less integrate
On 21 September 2010 22:13, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 21 September 2010 12:51, Earnie wrote:
>> Andy Koppe wrote:
Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows.
>>>
>>> No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It would
>>> effectively be Interix with a particularly
On 21 September 2010 12:51, Earnie wrote:
> Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows.
>>
>> No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It would
>> effectively be Interix with a particularly slow fork(). That's
>> unless it moved into its own s
Andy Koppe wrote:
>> Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows.
>
> No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It would
> effectively be Interix with a particularly slow fork(). That's
> unless it moved into its own subsystem, which of course would mean a
> major re
On 20 September 2010 15:39, JonY wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, JonY wrote:
>>> Will 64bit Cygwin be LP64 or LLP64? I sure hope its the former, but I
>>> don't know how much thunk is needed.
Interesting question. No idea what the answer is, but I guess LP64
would mean LONG == int and
2010/9/20 NightStrike
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM, JonY
> wrote:
> > On 9/20/2010 22:53, NightStrike wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, JonY
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 9/20/2010 22:36, Earnie wrote:
>
> Kai Tietz wrote:
> >
> > 2010/9/20 Earnie:
> >>
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 9/20/2010 22:53, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, JonY
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/20/2010 22:36, Earnie wrote:
Kai Tietz wrote:
>
> 2010/9/20 Earnie:
>>
>> Cesar Strauss wrote:
>>>
>>> Since
On 9/20/2010 22:53, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, JonY wrote:
>> On 9/20/2010 22:36, Earnie wrote:
>>> Kai Tietz wrote:
2010/9/20 Earnie:
> Cesar Strauss wrote:
>>
>> Since MSYS is derived from Cygwin, one way to get 64-bit support
>> for MSYS would be
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 9/20/2010 22:36, Earnie wrote:
>> Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> 2010/9/20 Earnie:
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
>
On 9/20/2010 22:36, Earnie wrote:
> Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2010/9/20 Earnie:
>>> 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
Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/9/20 Earnie :
>> 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 6
2010/9/20 Earnie :
> 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, w
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 evidenc
On 17/9/2010 12:58, ArbolOne wrote:
>
> Ok, folks. Apparently no one else is jumping on the Build MSYS under
> 64bit MSWin waggon. So, let us start with the project.
You are welcome to join the MSYS team on mingw.org. You may use the MSYS
mailing list, if you wish, to help coordinate this effort.
2010/9/17 JonY
>
> You should first work on newlib for x64 support, like syscall emulation,
> I guess.
>
> IMHO its probably easier to work on the Cygwin codebase than the
> existing MSYS code.
>
>
I would also suggest using cygwin as a base, as it is more up to date than
the old msys fork. I wou
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, ArbolOne wrote:
> Ok, folks. Apparently no one else is jumping on the Build MSYS under 64bit
> MSWin waggon. So, let us start with the project.
> Does any of you know where to get the latest source code?
>
> MSYS-64 Development Team
> ~~
> Teem
On 9/17/2010 23:58, ArbolOne wrote:
>
> Ok, folks. Apparently no one else is jumping on the Build MSYS under
> 64bit MSWin waggon. So, let us start with the project.
> Does any of you know where to get the latest source code?
>
> MSYS-64 Development Team
> ~~
> Teemu mailto:stin
Ok, folks. Apparently no one else is jumping on the Build MSYS under
64bit MSWin waggon. So, let us start with the project.
Does any of you know where to get the latest source code?
MSYS-64 Development Team
~~
Teemu mailto:stink...@yahoo.com>>
Bidski mailto:bid...@bigpond.n
21 matches
Mail list logo
