Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

[Ryan Johnson <ryan dot johnson at cs dot utoronto dot ca>]

On 02/07/2011 1:21 PM, Earnie wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > [SNIP] Hey, Yaakov -- what about this wild idea:  What if,
> > > cygwin64-1.dll's implementation of dlopen() -- and remember,
> > > cygwin64-1.dll can only be linked/loaded by a 64bit process --
> > > automatically translated all attempts to dlopen
> > > .../path/to/cyg*.dll to FIRST attempt to open cyg64*dll, then (if
> > > cyg*dll was actually 64bit, rather than the expected 32bit) fall
> > > back to the specified name?
> > I'm wondering why we didn't do this in the first place?  In theory
> > there's nothing which speaks against dlopen("/path/to/libfoo.so") to
> > check for valid combinations:
> >
> > - /path/to/libfoo.so - /path/to/libfoo.dll - /path/to/cygfoo.dll (32
> > bit) or /path/to/cyg64foo.dll (64 bit)
> When I was reading Yaakov's post I had the same idea.  It should ease
> the pain for porting since there is no need for upstream packages to
> have to make changes to accommodate the Cygwin specifics.
In my ignorance I always figured that's what was happening all along. 
What happens instead? It seems the #ifdef idea also doesn't happen?

BTW, we'd probably have to check the above list in reverse order, or 
risk opening the Windows-only libz.dll instead of cygz.dll.

Ryan