> I checked, and there are a number of other places where system-type
> is checked for cygwin32, mostly in conjunction with windows-nt. My
> _guess_ is that most if not all of these should be changed to
> include cygwin64. Thoughts?
So I wonder if we shouldn't actually replace cygwin32 with cygwin, and
not distinguish 32-bit from 64-bit. Neither windows-nt nor linux nor,
as far as I can see, any of the other systems, distinguish 32-bit from
Sigh, on reflection there's no way to win. Consider 3 ways forward:
1) We leave things as they are in src/s/cygwin*.h, edit all the files
that compare system-type to 'cygwin32' to include 'cygwin64';
2) We make the suggested change, i.e. set SYSTEM_TYPE to 'cygwin' in
src/s/cygwin*.h and _change_ all system-type comparisons to
'cygwin32' to use 'cygwin' instead;
3) We revert to my earliest patch, i.e. set SYSTEM_TYPE to 'cygwin32'
None of these are without pain:
(1) will cause obscure failures in existing user code which tests
system-type against 'cygwin32' if they run the 64-bit version;
(2) Same problem as (1), but worse -- happens if they run _either_
(3) Doesn't break anything, but is misleading on the face of it.
(2) is clearly out, it seems to me -- we can't break the 32-bit
install for people who expect to update w/o pain.
I'm _slightly_ inclined towards (3), on the grounds that we still have
lots of '...win32...' names lying around which are actually perfectly
useful in 64-bit builds.
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht(a)inf.ed.ac.uk
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
XEmacs-Beta mailing list