This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Cary R. wrote:
> ________________________________
> From: NightStrike
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>> On 17 March 2013 13:45, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> You certainly could but that would mean that you'd be releasing untested
>>> software for 64-bit.  Is that something that we want to endorse or should
>>> we have some way of validating this.
>> This brings up an interesting point, in that I don't have access to a
>> 64-bit machine to validate any packages I maintain.  Would running a
>> 64-bit version of Windows in VM (i.e. virtualbox) be acceptable?
>> Having a cross-compiler would be a definite plus because I've found
>> VMs to be incredibly slow, so it would be fine for validating but I
>> wouldn't want to compile in a VM.
> If you don't actually have a 64-bit machine, then a VM will not help.
> You can't virtualize a 64-bit guest on a 32-bit host with either
> VMWare, VirtualBox, or VirtualPC.
> Caveat -- the above statement is as of the last time I looked at it.
> Things always change.
> ---
> That's not my experience. With VirtualBox on a 32-bit windows XP machine
> I run both 32 and 64 bit version of Linux. The underlying hardware needs to
> have 64-bit support and you are still limited by the memory that the host OS
> can support.
> Cary

"...underlying hardware needs to have 64-bit support..."

That's what I meant by "...actually have a 64-bit machine..."

I was referring to the physical hardware.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]