Mail Archives: cygwin/2008/08/06/22:18:17
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 08:48:18PM -0400, Francis Litterio wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> Perhaps this can be "fixed" for any non-x86 Cygwin port?
>>> The very concept of a non-x86 Cygwin port is meaningless nonsense. You
>>> need to do a bit more homework. I suggest you start by reading the
>>> first sentence on the first page at http://cygwin.com/.
>> Doesn't Windows Server 2003 run on Intel's Itanium processor?
>> Technically, that's a non-x86 Windows platform.
>
> Would it help if I vowed not to port Cygwin to the Itanium?
What?!?! No Itanium port of Cygwin? Now what are we supposed to do,
huh?
(Sorry for co-opting this thread for my own purposes but as desperate
as this ABI issue is, the fact that Cygwin will not be ported to
Itanium is, well, catastrophic! Chris must be stopped... or started...
or something!!!)
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
_____________________________________________________________________
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -