Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add ability to choose which MSBuild architecture to use #85

Closed
alextercete opened this issue Jul 27, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Add ability to choose which MSBuild architecture to use #85

alextercete opened this issue Jul 27, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@alextercete
Copy link

After #84 was fixed, our automated builds started failing. We're building Visual Studio extensions, which use the VSSDK NuGet package. As part of its build process, a 32-bit process (VSCT.exe) is invoked, which causes an error to occur. Ideally, we'd like to be able to force a 32-bit MSBuild process even if we're running on a 64-bit machine.

Would it be possible to add the ability to do something like this?

use 15.0:x86 MSBuild

The idea being it could be applied to other paths like VisualStudio\<version>:

use VisualStudio\14.0:x86 MSBuild
@nightroman
Copy link
Owner

Would it be possible to add the ability to do something like this?

For MSBuild, yes, let me investigate and add this feature. The convention 15.0:x86 looks fine, I am just not sure about the colon in it, e.g. psake does not use it. Perhaps we should adopt this existing practice and use 15.0x86.

@alextercete
Copy link
Author

Sure, that works for me! The colon was inspired by the way you specify the architecture when installing packages using apt-get, but I'm not super attached to that suggestion.

@nightroman
Copy link
Owner

For now, I am going to support only the suffix x86 which means "ensure 32-bit MSBuild".
In this way, it is going to be consistent across all versions and cover your problem case.
Problem cases with required but not yet supported suffix x64 are not yet known.

@alextercete
Copy link
Author

alextercete commented Jul 28, 2017

That makes sense.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help -- I'm happy to have a stab at a pull request if you aren't already working on it.

@nightroman
Copy link
Owner

Thank you. It's all done and being tested. So far so good. I will release this tonight, more likely.

@nightroman
Copy link
Owner

v3.6.4
I knew it was going to happen but was waiting for a problem case. Thank you for your report.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants