Re: mingw-rust and mingw32, SJLJ vs dwarf2 exception model
On 13.08.19 06:03, Greg Hellings wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:22 PM Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com
<mailto:mike@cchtml.com>> wrote:
On 8/12/19 9:11 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> In 2019, is there any reason to just not ship a 32-bit Windows
binary? Does anyone
> still use non-64-bit Windows?
The problem isn't with us or with MinGW. There's still plently of
third-party,
closed source 32-bit only applications that require a full 32-bit
runtime. It will
be a decade or more before we can finally say goodbye to 32-bit.
@Sandro, I have no hard objection to switching to DW2, but I have
no objection
either to dropping the 32-bit package. There shouldn't be many
users of rust
requiring 32-bit runtimes.
This is what I meant - not dropping the mingw32 toolchain. Sorry for
the confusion.
You have the problem what to do with packages which require rust,
currently librsvg2. Without a mingw32-rust, I'd also need to drop
mingw32-librsvg2, and all mingw32-* packages depending on it, or split
the actual librsvg2 package into a mingw32-librsvg2 package which will
stay frozen at version 2.40.19 (resp. the last version prior to rust
being required), and a mingw64-librsvg2 which will follow the latest
releases. But if more libraries pick up a rust requirement, this may
become impractical, for both users and other packages, say for instance
if a library interface changes and you'd need to handle the mingw32- and
mingw64- case separately in dependent packages.
Sandro
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.7 KB)