X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: mwoehlke Subject: Re: MINGW GCC WIN64 port? Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:54:02 -0500 Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <8540148a0609180953g4ea13955m9da15e47928c4f41@mail.gmail.com> <20060918191813.GA29609@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060719 Thunderbird/1.5.0.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 In-Reply-To: <20060918191813.GA29609@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:26:31PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >> William Deegan wrote: >>> This may be a little off topic, but I beleive there's enough of an >>> audience here to make it worthwhile. >>> >>> One of my clients is interested in getting MINGW working on win64. >>> We're considering engaging codesourcery to do the work. >>> Anyone out there interested/able to co-funding the work? >> For the record, I know I saw something somewhere within the last month >> or two about binutils adding support for win64, which is a major part of >> this project. If you aren't the person that made the announcement I am >> thinking of, you might want to be careful about not duplicating work >> that someone else is already doing. (I'd have to think that whoever is >> working on it already would appreciate help, however.) > > The patch has been submitted so I think the only help required is to > test it. > > The discussion is going on in the binutils_AT_sourceware_PERIOD_org mailing > list. I was also thinking of gcc/gdb (and of course ironing out bugs in the various ports, i.e. Cygwin, mingw, Interix); my impression was that what was "done" (at least when I heard) was just binutils and gcc/gdb would be the next steps. Maybe I'm wrong? Anyway, we are certainly in agreement that Bill's main effort should be to test/improve what is already done rather than re-invent the wheel. Thanks for the link (and for reminding me where I saw this). :-) -- Matthew KATE: Awesome Text Editor -- 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/