This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Latest 64 bit test stuff on sourceware
On Feb 17 21:32, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 17 February 2013 14:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 17 08:51, Ken Brown wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2013 4:33 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >On Feb 16 23:17, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> >>1. base-cygwin...tar.xz puts its binaries in /bin, but gcc
> >> >>et al expects to be in /usr/bin (I think, at least that was
> >> >>the case in the previous version of that tarball). The other
> >> >>tarballs but their binaries in /usr/bin. The default mounts:
> >> >>[...]
> >> >>This issue feels like it's something I've misunderstood.
> >> >
> >> >The base package installs symlinks usr/bin -> ../bin and usr/lib ->
> >> >../lib. This was supposed to solve the problem since when unpacking the
> >> >other packages, the 32 bit tar finds the symlinks and installs
> >> >everything usr/bin to bin and everything usr/lib to lib, as expected.
> >> >
> >> >Are you saying that didn't work?
> >>
> >> It didn't work for me either. Unpacking the base package creates
> >> the symlinks, but unpacking the remaining packages blows them away.
> >> I had to move everything from /usr/bin to /bin and from /usr/lib to
> >> /lib and then recreate the symlinks.
> >
> > Try `tar xJkf <archive>'
>
> That worked for me.
>
> I've uploaded a new mintty to
> ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/install, after checking fixes into
> svn trunk. It's built with the native x86_64 toolchain.
>
> I've also tried ye olde date fork benchmark (`while true; do date;
> done | uniq -c`), on a Windows 8-64 laptop: I got 26 dates per second
> with 32-bit Cygwin, but 50 with 64-bit Cygwin, so that's looking quite
> promising.
Sounds good. I just hope it's not only a side-effect of some bug still
lurking in Cygwin :}
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat