Message-ID: <4FBBEAB4.4030105@hones.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 20:36:20 +0100
From: Cliff Hones <cliff@hones.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)
References: <70952A932255A2489522275A628B97C31348C6E2@xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <70952A932255A2489522275A628B97C31348C6E2@xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

On 22/05/2012 20:06, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>> From: Cygwin-L On Behalf Of Warren Young
>> I would say that the vast majority of the packages in the Cygwin
>> distribution could not reasonably make use of 64-bit data spaces.
>>
>> However, one of your arguments in this thread cuts both ways: the fact
>> that there are a few packages that reasonably can do so means you cannot
>> say "we don't need it".
> 
> If someone wants a 64-bit version of a packages in the distribution, then how about they build a 64-bit version of the package and report the results?  That would give the distribution maintainers actual data about the costs and benefits.

Hear hear.  Well said.  Perhaps we can drop this tedious thread now,
or else TITTTL.  IMHO it has shown rather lamentable knowledge of
both compiler technology and RISC/CISC architecture from at least one
responder.

-- Cliff


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple