[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Adjust `build-platform' and `software-vers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Adjust `build-platform' and `software-version' values for Cygwin
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:05:41 +0100
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 06:53:04PM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
> On 2018-03-11 15:33, Peter Bex wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:37:01PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> > > > PS: What about mingw64? Should we define that as a separate software
> > > > version? Or maybe just rename it to "mingw" for both?
> > >
> > > I'd say use "mingw" for both, one can use the "64bit" feature to
> > > distinguish them.
> > After some thought, perhaps this introduces a needless change, given that
> > people can already cond-expand on (mingw32) right now (with my patch that
> > didn't change). That means another porting hassle.
> I'm not sure what's best here, but I'm leaning towards just "mingw".
> If I understand the different versions of MinGW correctly (and it's
> unlikely that I do...), there is both mingw32 (http://mingw.org) and
> mingw-w64 (http://mingw-w64.org), which are different things: the former
> is the old name for "normal" MinGW (according to Wikipedia, anyway),
> while the latter is a fork of that. So, using "mingw32" might be
> misleading, since we define just the one feature for both of these
If in doubt, keep it the way it is (so just "mingw32"). Like I said,
that will make things easier for people porting from CHICKEN 4 to
Description: PGP signature