21 Apr 2008 15:07
Re: [Mingw-users] Necessary environment path settings?
Keith Marshall <keithmarshall@...>
2008-04-21 13:07:57 GMT
2008-04-21 13:07:57 GMT
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 20:49, Keith Marshall wrote: > So, to return to your question, what on earth could mingw64 possibly > mean, if not MinGW for a 64-bit platform. The canonical form of a > host triplet is CPU-VENDOR-OSTYPE. If the OSTYPE is mingw32, that is > unambiguously MinGW for any one of the i86 processor family, Actually, this isn't strictly true; mingw32 is unambiguously MinGW for Microsoft's Win32 /operating/ /system/, *irrespective* of whichever processor it may be running on; just as Win16 ran for years on 32-bit processors, (did anyone /ever/ run it /usefully/ with a 16-bit CPU?), Win32 can run on 64-bit processors. > so the CPU and VENDOR fields are completely redundant; indeed, what > VENDOR does `pc' signify anyway? IBM? Sun? Fred Bloggs? It is > completely meaningless, and might as well be discarded; the equally > acceptable i386-unknown-mingw32 is preferable, IMO. > > Right. VENDOR is redundant. It conveys no useful information, when > the only platform targetted by the OSTYPE is singularly identified, > as it is in the case of OSTYPE == mingw32, (which targets i86 > generic family processors *exclusively*). By the same token, CPU is > redundant too, because it is unambiguously identified when OSTYPE == > mingw32, just as OSTYPE == mingw64 would be singularly unambiguous; > in either case config.sub can unambiguously canonicalise the target, > *solely* on either one of these OSTYPEs: > > OSTYPE == mingw32 ==> i386-unknown-mingw32 Here, since it is possible to run Win32 on 64-bit processors, there could be a case for the canonical form `x86_64-unknown-mingw32', but does it convey anything /useful/ (to the tool chain), that isn't already implicit in the non-canonical form, `mingw32'? > OSTYPE == mingw64 ==> x86_64-unknown-mingw64 And here, this remains unambiguous only until Intel/AMD introduce the x86_128 architecture, and Microsoft aren't ready with Win128; then we will no doubt see Win64 running on x86_128. But, I continue to stand by this... > so why burden us with redundant information? We may just as well > dispense with the CPU and VENDOR fields, and still have the > appropriate tool chain unambiguously specified by just the OSTYPE > name. ...since `mingw32' and `mingw64' actually have more to do with the OS association, (Win32 vs. Win64), than any particular processor affinity. Regards, Keith. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone