On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:36, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.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@cygwin.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 can try again with Cygwin 1.7. and see if that improves matters, but I bet
>> it doesn't.
Sounds like it's worth a try - they seem to at least know the issues detect.
> 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)
> The other possible option that I hesitate to suggest is Windows
> Services for Unix or SUA as I think it's now called.
You mean we should post flex to that? Or have you found someone who has already?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
