My understanding is that you target what you want to support, so if he's
only shipping fully managed code and supporting x64 systems then it
doesn't matter too much but in that case may be sidelining x86 or ARM
users for no real reason.
It gets more complicated if you need to support multiple architectures
or have unmanaged dependencies where you need to match the bitness of
the dependencies with the application process, this is where AnyCPU and
AnyCPU (32-bit preferred) options will start to shine.
https://dzone.com/articles/what-anycpu-really-means-net
-Tony
On 13/10/2022 08:45, Greg Keogh via ozdotnet wrote:
Folks, one of my colleagues insists on compiling everything as
platform x64 mainly because he thinks "it's an x64 world and it
creates a better impression". For a year I've tried to convince him
that for managed code that it's a complete waste of time. I've told
him that ildasm.exe shows that for x64 and AnyCPU the generated IL and
the manifests are identical, I even told him that dumpbin.exe shows
the only non trivial difference in the PE headers is a couple of flags
that show x86/x64 and PE32/PE32+, but they don't affect the loading
and running of a PE containing IL and metadata.
Does anyone have paradigm-shattering evidence I can give my colleague
to break his habit? (I'm hoping I'm right of course!!)
/Greg/
