-=> Maurice Kinal wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

 TL> That avoided the question, add the words "to you?" at the end of
 TL> the question. :)

 MK> Ah!  Well then the answer lies in my question; If a 64 bit SoC then
 MK> gosh darn it the kernel/OS better be 64 bit and if not then it should
 MK> be able to build it's own 64 bitness else it isn't worth the power it
 MK> consumes.

OK, I don't quite subscribe to the same logic, afterall, I had a 64 bit capable
processor (x86 style) before I had a 64 bit OS.  The latter only became
important when I started getting systems with 4G RAM, since 64 bit makes it
easier to fully utilise 4GB or more on x86 systems with this much RAM (no need
to resort to PAE, etc).  However, each to their own.  

 MK> On that note I am currently trying to track down a legitimate howto-ish
 MK> doc on building a cross-compiler targetting a raspi3 using a x86_64
 MK> host.  I did build
 MK>  one but after further investigation I am sure it doesn't work despite
 MK> the fact
 MK>  that it is successfully compiling runtimes and kernels it cannot run.
 MK> They might work but sincee I lack the actual platform I am not very
 MK> confident they will.  Mind you that is what I thought about the first
 MK> 64 bit enviroment I built on the dual p3 system 15-ish years ago.

Well, if yo're already trying to cross compile 64 bit kernels, perhaps you do
need to but a 64 bit capable ARM system. :-)

 MK> Hm.  The random tagline seems a tad ominous given the actual subject of
 MK> this message and not the part of the message that is labelled as such,
 MK> although there could end up being an issue there as well given the
 MK> target's root/boot disk.

Taglines have a habit of doing that. :)


... Always look out for #1 and be careful not to step in #2.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49