On 2018-01-12 11:11, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 2018-01-12 03:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Jan 11 22:52, Denis Excoffier wrote: >>> The full list contains 8006 lines, i have the complete Cygwin 32bit >>> installation >> >> The bottom line of this is, and it has been said before and I can't >> stress this enough, we can't support this scenario at all, for the >> simple fact that we have more DLLs than fit into the 32 bit address >> space. It's not much of a problem on 64 bit, but on 32 bit it's just >> not feasible anymore. >> >> Ultimately, You should (must) not install all of Cygwin on 32 bit, only >> the set of stuff you need on top of the base category. Or install 64 >> bit Cygwin. > > If it is not possible for the entire 32-bit distribution to function as > a whole, is it time to reconsider how much we provide for 32-bit? And > when can we just drop 32-bit entirely?
When the 32 bit toolchain is available under x86_64 for cross builds and testing, and Windows X EoLs 32 bit? It could take a long while for US and other governments and orgs to upgrade all hardware to support 64 bit desktops. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
