Matthew Woehlke wrote:
This sub-topic is about 64-bit mingw. Apparently, it is the only gcc for 64-bit Windows with any near-term prospects. As mingw requires Microsoft libraries, the point about requiring data type consistency with those libraries has to be accepted. 32-bit cygwin already has differences in data types from mingw32, for example, in partial support of 80-bit long double. As cygwin aims to support linux compatibility, I guess that a 64-bit long would not be out of the question, should a 64-bit cygwin emerge. If 64-bit cygwin is totally impossible, I may be among those abandoning cygwin and Windows gcc.Brian Dessent wrote:Matthew Woehlke wrote:Incidentally, does the Windows-x64 port* of gcc perpetuate this idiocy?That's a silly question... Of course it does, it's not gcc's decision to make. If gcc were to act in a way that is fundamentally broken from the platform specification it would be utterly useless as a compiler -- calling any system function or anything else built by the native tools would have wrong arguments, structs would have different layouts, you'd get all kinds of random crashes.Hmm, true... bleh. Bummer that even gcc is stuck with Microsoft's decision making.
