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.
