Hi Simon, On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Bin, > > On 3 August 2017 at 18:17, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> Hi Bin, >>> >>> On 1 August 2017 at 17:33, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Convert SANDBOX_BITS_PER_LONG to Kconfig and assign it a correct >>>> number depending on which host we are going to build and run. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> arch/sandbox/Kconfig | 5 +++++ >>>> board/sandbox/README.sandbox | 7 +++---- >>>> scripts/config_whitelist.txt | 1 - >>>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>> >>> Is it OK to build 64-bit sandbox on a 32-bit machine? Does that actually >>> work? >>> >>> If then I think we need a 3-way setting like: >>> >>> - 32-bit >>> - 64-bit >>> - native (i.e. whatever the host is) >> >> That means cross-compiling sandbox. So far this is not working. I will >> take a look. > > Or perhaps we just require it to use the bit size of the host? Does > compiling 64-bit U-Boot on a 32-bit machine actually work? >
I have not looked into that further but I suspect there is more work than the bit size of the host, for example, linking 64-bit vs. 32-bit libraries? Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
