Re: Winflex

Magnus Hagander napsal(a):
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:36, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. I spent a few cents and a few hours wrestling with it. AFAICT your are
>>> hosed on 64bit Windows. I can't get flex built and Cygwin is behaving very
>>> oddly. There are indications that the problem could be fairly deep - see
>>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin(at)cygwin(dot)com/msg102463.html>
>>>
>> What Linda describes there is all normal behaviour for a 32 bit app on
>> 64 bit Windows. Windows is providing a virtual 32 bit environment,
>> where for the most part the 32 bit app doesn't realise it's running on
>> 64 bit. Unfortunately there are always things that look a bit odd due
>> to this, but normally I've found that the 32bit code runs fine, it
>> just looks odd from Explorer or 64 bit apps because of the
>> folder/registry redirection that happens behind the scenes.
>>
>
> Yeah, none of that should have an effect on a tool like "flex", though...
>

I think the actual problem is the implementation of fork emulation which
changed in 1.7.

>>> I can try again with Cygwin 1.7. and see if that improves matters, but I bet
>>> it doesn't.
>>>

Cygwin 1.7.0-52 (iirc) with flex works for me on x64 Vista.

>> What about msys? Or is that not capable of building the newer versions of flex?
>>
>
> IIRC we looked at that before, and that one is also limited to the
> version before they started doing fork() (that was the problem with
> the newer ones and gnuwin32, iirc)
>

No they have newest flex, but the whole thing is even more broken on
64bit then (old) cygwin version - it just exits without doing anything
and does not even report any errors.

--
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)