On Thursday 31 July 2025 15:55:25 Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2025, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > On Saturday 28 June 2025 16:20:46 LIU Hao wrote: > > > 在 2025-6-28 05:12, Pali Rohár 写道: > > > > > > > > So is the idea of deduplicating lib32 and lib-common def files > > > > abandoned? Or is there still any interest to do it? > > > > > > I'm rather neutral about this change; as explained earlier I'd prefer > > > keeping them separate. However I don't mind such a change either. > > > > Ok, I will let it for Martin, once is back. > > I also don't have a very strong opinion here. Having the lib32 versions > separate is clearer in one way - but duplication is bad of course. It's > mostly a question whether this really makes maintainance easier, or more > work (needing to source all def file changes through a 32 bit version, even > if only working/looking a 64 bit version). Due to the latter, I mildly think > it may end up causing extra effort in the end.
Currently the "lib-common" file is used also for 32-bit arm. So it is not 64-bit only definition how people could think. I understand that libraries with very different set of symbols could or should be split into lib32, lib64, etc... But if we have a library which has exactly same list of exports in all versions, I still think that for these libraries it makes sense to deduplicate them into one "lib-common" file. And my proposal in the first email was to locate these libraries with same set of symbols and deduplicate them to one def file. The point is to not deduplicate everything where 32-bit and 64-bit lib have different set of symbols. > What do Biswapriyo think about it, who has spent a lot of work on updates > for these files? > > // Martin _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
