X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=jMSE4I8GFAQhPPDV
	vAU7zYZdDqgWejCoTSWw2se5omgnFaXJ9aeamYkmuuGzgh/DCygKBmNZbYrhjpVf
	64L7jPh8zTr4an/oTVSE8//nRX2oBS7SI8olhH3oVz9kyencR3Tf7jvBuuNylBE8
	vXdlLOoZHWq1CwvppAlyiy3WpZg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=0SeY+x1WfnHo6Ru+ovJQMK
	TYfIY=; b=JwvnhmwHeeX3sgerwfJyZQOXcU30FDPfkxy2FO4TKNpvHeMzFyD2iW
	g+Hc76mgFc2vZSxwr9IIEaOpW1QX9+5TwFoXpKJGCLlaFAZeFWxraZPxlA/2MRnB
	UcFnurcBwyFYjGLHucca4C8YTEywo7dkqNRnlEefdLl1yf7YMD7Aw=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Message-id: <5217A8A2.7060700@cygwin.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:23:30 -0400
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Why are the 32- and 64-bit cygwin1.dlls incompatible?
References: <52162CA9 DOT 9080002 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20130822171419 DOT GQ2562 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CA+sc5mnedD0hOfzwTWYzy0QVhKC9gg-C68Nxfska-HG0HFOpLQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20130823094919 DOT GT2562 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52178ED2 DOT 4090806 AT etr-usa DOT com>
In-reply-to: <52178ED2.4090806@etr-usa.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 8/23/2013 12:33 PM, Warren Young wrote:

<snip>

>> I just hope this won't lead to more confusion if 32 bit processes
>> started from 64 bit (or vice versa) don't act as expected in some
>> circumstances.
>
> Oh, it probably will, but a cygcheck dump will tell us when this is probably
> happening, because both Cygwin bins will be in the PATH.

Probably but I think we need to keep a close eye on how much this adds to
the support load and user confusion.  If it is more than a small amount, I
think it's worth considering a sunset clause on this or perhaps a switch
(ugh) to turn this on for those that know, love, and want it. :-)

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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