Hi,
it seems we should gain some clarification for the naming of the various ways Wine can be configured.
This question arises between "old wow64" and "new wow64" esp. some use wow64 without it being very clear to what it applies (some using wine's old wow64 configuration as it was the only one, others refer to window's wow64 architecture, hence "new wow64" in wine lingo)
some have used multi-arch wow(64) or multi arch wine for reference to the new wine wow64...
it seems to me we'd better use a common denomination for all of this...
- only applying to cross compilation (open point if we still need to refer to ELF/dylib exec:s)
- different from images naming (for which the <CPU>-<HOST> applies)
So this mail to share the question, and a proposal
- *wow64*: the new multi-arch wow64 configuration, which mimics windows wow64 architecture ; dropping the 'new' to match with windows (and also, not sure that in 10years from now it will still be "new") - (wine)*old wow64*: the wine-only old wow64 configuration
if needed (at least to remind that they exist)
- *pure32*: the 32bit only configuration
- *pure64*: the 64bit only configuration
Note: the proposal doesn't include whether the configuration can run a module for a given CPU. That's questionable.
For comments, rant, other proposals...
better ideas
TIA
I suggest "host32" for the old configuration, since it uses the 32-bit support of the host OS.
On 3/31/23 11:46, Eric Pouech wrote:
So this mail to share the question, and a proposal
- *wow64*: the new multi-arch wow64 configuration, which mimics windows
wow64 architecture ; dropping the 'new' to match with windows (and also, not sure that in 10years from now it will still be "new")
I don't see what is gained by being *less* specific, especially when we've been referring to this as unqualified "wow64" for years. I fully intend to keep calling this "new", and I'd exhort anyone else to as well.
On 31/03/2023 19:59, Zeb Figura wrote:
On 3/31/23 11:46, Eric Pouech wrote:
So this mail to share the question, and a proposal
- *wow64*: the new multi-arch wow64 configuration, which mimics
windows wow64 architecture ; dropping the 'new' to match with windows (and also, not sure that in 10years from now it will still be "new")
I don't see what is gained by being *less* specific, especially when we've been referring to this as unqualified "wow64" for years. I fully intend to keep calling this "new", and I'd exhort anyone else to as well.
Isn't the "old wow64" still going to be used if the host supplies the necessary 32-bit libraries? To avoid rather expensive syscalls and mode switches (only "unix calls"). I recall something along those lines.
In that case I would suggest something like "host wow64" or "multi-arch wow64" for the old wow64. "host32" suggested by Esme is probably fine but I feel like it still needs wow64 in the name?
On 3/31/23 12:47, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
On 31/03/2023 19:59, Zeb Figura wrote:
On 3/31/23 11:46, Eric Pouech wrote:
So this mail to share the question, and a proposal
- *wow64*: the new multi-arch wow64 configuration, which mimics
windows wow64 architecture ; dropping the 'new' to match with windows (and also, not sure that in 10years from now it will still be "new")
I don't see what is gained by being *less* specific, especially when we've been referring to this as unqualified "wow64" for years. I fully intend to keep calling this "new", and I'd exhort anyone else to as well.
Isn't the "old wow64" still going to be used if the host supplies the necessary 32-bit libraries? To avoid rather expensive syscalls and mode switches (only "unix calls"). I recall something along those lines.
I would have thought so, but apparently we've started making some features exclusive to new-style wow64. (Note that syscalls happen either way, but mode switches are definitely going to be expensive.)
On 31/03/2023 22:02, Zebediah Figura wrote:
On 3/31/23 12:47, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
On 31/03/2023 19:59, Zeb Figura wrote:
On 3/31/23 11:46, Eric Pouech wrote:
So this mail to share the question, and a proposal
- *wow64*: the new multi-arch wow64 configuration, which mimics
windows wow64 architecture ; dropping the 'new' to match with windows (and also, not sure that in 10years from now it will still be "new")
I don't see what is gained by being *less* specific, especially when we've been referring to this as unqualified "wow64" for years. I fully intend to keep calling this "new", and I'd exhort anyone else to as well.
Isn't the "old wow64" still going to be used if the host supplies the necessary 32-bit libraries? To avoid rather expensive syscalls and mode switches (only "unix calls"). I recall something along those lines.
I would have thought so, but apparently we've started making some features exclusive to new-style wow64. (Note that syscalls happen either way, but mode switches are definitely going to be expensive.)
Yeah but unix calls are much faster/slimmer than "actual" syscalls (well, they're not true syscalls either) now due to optimizations especially for e.g. vulkan, and AFAIK wow64 use "actual" syscalls (plus a mode switch) instead of the lighter unixcalls, but correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Eric Pouech -
Esme Povirk -
Gabriel Ivăncescu -
Zeb Figura -
Zebediah Figura