On 2018-03-11 15:33, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:37:01PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com 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

Perhaps someone with a better understanding of these projects could
chime in. Otherwise, I'm partial to just "mingw", since we don't

> > Actually, some quasi-parameter like "(word-size)" might be a good
> > idea, what do you think?
> I think that could be useful, yeah.  In chicken.platform, presumably?




Chicken-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to