Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:40:35 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: stunnel windows x64
Message-ID: <20090803144035.GA18330@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <165 DOT 508-30910-1427392228-1249302824 AT seznam DOT cz>  <200908030905 DOT 04985 DOT andrex AT alumni DOT utexas DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200908030905.04985.andrex@alumni.utexas.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:05:04AM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>On Monday 03 August 2009 08:33:44 Tomas Ulicky wrote:
>>Hi, it is possible to start releasing pure x64 version of stunnel?
>>OpenSSL exist in x64 version and there is gcc that can create x64
>>binaries.  It will be good to have one, because in Windows 2008 R2
>>server there will be uninstallable support for x86 to harden security
>>and no x86 binary will run on it.  Thanks
>
>I assume that this is a Cygwin question.  Please direct Cygwin
>questions to the cygwin mailing list, so that other people can
>participate in and benefit from the conversation.
>
>AFAIK, Cygwin is as of now a purely 32-bit environment.  Until there's
>a 64- bit DLL to link against, I don't think a 64-bit stunnel would be
>possible or useful.

That's right Cygwin is purely 32-bit.  I think that things will stay
that way until someone pays Red Hat (or me) to change this.  Making
cygwin work in a real 64-bit environment will be quite a bit of work.

cgf

--
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