Re: [AD] Re: mingw not mingw32

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives ]


On Sunday 18 December 2005 07:37, Death Gauge wrote:
> I've seen this come up hundreds of times on IRC, a few times on A.cc, and
> now on here. Who cares if it is MinGW or MinGW32? The 32 is implied that is
> why it was removed from the name. Look at the Win API which until recently
> was also referred to as Win32 API. My question is this: WHO CARES? It isn't
> that big of a deal to see MinGW32 instead of MinGW and it isn't that big of
> the to have to type fix mingw32 with two extra characters. As for
> documentation, why fix it to match MinGW.org? MinGW32 is MinGW so therefore
> there isn't any thesible reason to mess with changing the appearances of
> one or the other.

Thats the problem though, it isn't implied, gcc/mingw is capable of running on 
and generating binarys for 64bit windows platforms (itanium, amd64 etc).

> >>I've been looking at the website http://www.mingw.org/ .  Some time ago
> >>the 32 was dropped from mingw32.  Its official name is mingw now.  I
> >>propose that all of the files and source code in allegro be changed from
> >>mingw32 to mingw.
> >
> >It's not worth changing it everywhere.  Michal Molhanec "replaced all
> >occurences of MingW32 by MinGW in the docs" at some stage.  I propose we
> >keep the same policy and leave "mingw32" in the source code and
> >makefiles and directory and file names and use "mingw" for
> >documentation.
> >
> >Attached is a patch to change a few more occurences where it is harmless
> >to do so.
> >
> >Peter

-- 
Thomas Fjellstrom




Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/