Re: [Mingw-w64-public] To 32 or 64, that is the question :)

[Koehne K. <Kai...@di...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kennard [mailto:pe...@li...]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 2:19 AM
> To: min...@li...
> Subject: [Mingw-w64-public] To 32 or 64, that is the question :)
> 
> as the unified installer has options for 64 and 32 bit installs.
> 
> I assume the 64 bit install will not run on a 32 bit machine or a 32 bit OS install.

Yes (unless you're running it inside in an emulator ;)
 
> Does which install is chosen ONLY effect the actual running of the tools
> themselves on the HOST machine or does it have any influence on what the
> tools build and link - ie: what compile targets are built and what libraries are
> present and/or linked with?

The bitness in the installer first of all says how the _toolchain_ is compiled.
By default the toolchain will also generate code for the same bitness (
32 bit gcc toolchain will generate 32 bit applications, a 64 bit gcc toolchain will generate
64 bit applications), but gcc is also able to work as a cross-compiler (-m64 -m32 gcc arguments). 
I don't think all toolchains support this though, you'd have to check. Last time I tried the mingw-builds
toolchains supported this. 

> Or is what target is built 100% selected by the build scripts coded to use the
> tools?
>
> Related, Will both versions run underneath 32 bit shells or interpreters like
> ant, make, or ruby that may be 32 bit executables themselves yet running on
> a 64 bit OS?

Yes.

> If there is a difference in the output targets, can one install BOTH versions in
> the same install directory (ie: can then unzip on either a
> 32 or 64 bit machine and the proper libraries/dlls for runtime are lanuched by
> the master .exe or does one have two installs and select which one to use by
> setting the path appropriately?

The master.exe determines the bitness. You can't AFAIK mix 32 bit libraries with 64 bit executables under Windows, or the other way round.
 
> Hope this isn't too messy a set of questions :)  I just didn't see any explicit
> mention of it.

Regards

Kai