> Actually, I think it is slightly. IIUC, the AMD64 build currently assumes
> it can execute x86 executables in various places. To fix this, the build
> process for each of the platforms would be slightly different.
Why does that need fixing? The AMD64 build *can* execute x86 binaries,
whether
> I think this is fine; we don't really have a notion of compiling for a
> native platform, nor is the build machine's architecture factored into
> the equation.
Actually, I think it is slightly. IIUC, the AMD64 build currently assumes
it can execute x86 executables in various places. To fix thi
> Further, I
> assert that there are a greater number of build tools which do not support
> cross-compilation, but will build natively on x64 and expect 'PCBuild'
> to have libraries they can link with to create an x64 binary.
I'm with Martin on this one as well I think. If I understand correctly
>> The reverse may also be true: some tools may expect PCbuild to contain
>> always x86 binaries, even on AMD64 - as they don't support non-x86 at
>> all. Those tools might break if PCbuild suddenly starts containing
>> AMD64 binaries.
>
> I agree. However, it is my assertion that there are very
Martin quoting me:
> > Currently, the "official" (by way of being de-facto) directory
> > structure for a build tree is 'PCBuild/.' for x86 builds and
> > 'PCBuild/amd64' for x64
> > platforms. I believe this might cause problems for people trying to
> > port their applications to 64bit platform
