Good question. Not much is the answer. It just sets a flag in the PE header that controls the bittyness *at runtime*.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/516730/what-does-the-visual-studio-any-cpu-target-mean You can use dumpbin to change it (for fun) if you care to do so, since the IL is the same. On 5 Mar 2013 09:03, "Katherine Moss" <katherine.m...@gordon.edu> wrote: > But this would also be a good place for this discussion, maybe? Since I > am planning on learning how to develop on the .net framework for now, > should I try learning, since there are a few ways in which one could > compile an application, does it matter whether 32 bit, 64 bit, or the any > CPU option is used? And what benefit would one over the other provide? * > *** > > ** ** > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *David Kean > *Sent:* Monday, March 04, 2013 5:49 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* RE: Does anybody know why the visual studio 2012 developer > command prompt points to a 32-bit path when on a 64-bit OS?**** > > ** ** > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ricom/archive/2009/06/10/visual-studio-why-is-there-no-64-bit-version.aspx > **** > > ** ** > > What’s the Resource Editing with controls issue?**** > > ** ** > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [ > mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>] *On > Behalf Of *mike smith > *Sent:* Monday, March 4, 2013 2:21 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: Does anybody know why the visual studio 2012 developer > command prompt points to a 32-bit path when on a 64-bit OS?**** > > ** ** > > Heh. My question would be "Why?" And should third part software > manufacturers that write code for Windows follow your lead in this? Yes, I > know that the x86 version of VS2012 produces x64 code, but certain aspects > of VS2012 are poorly integrated with its production. Resource editing > with controls, for instance.**** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:14 AM, David Kean <david.k...@microsoft.com> > wrote:**** > > We have no intention on delivering a x64 version.**** > > **** > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Craig van Nieuwkerk > *Sent:* Monday, March 4, 2013 2:05 PM**** > > > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: Does anybody know why the visual studio 2012 developer > command prompt points to a 32-bit path when on a 64-bit OS?**** > > **** > > When I download from MSDN it only lists 32 bit versions. **** > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:02 AM, mike smith <meski...@gmail.com> wrote:**** > > I thought there was an intent to release an x64 version this time > around, but a fast google didn't show one.**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu> > wrote:**** > > Dang, it shouldn’t be. What was Microsoft on when they made that > decision? LOL. **** > > **** > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Craig van Nieuwkerk > *Sent:* Monday, March 04, 2013 4:10 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: Does anybody know why the visual studio 2012 developer > command prompt points to a 32-bit path when on a 64-bit OS?**** > > **** > > AFAIK, Visual Studio is still a 32bit application, so possibly related.*** > * > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu> > wrote:**** > > I was wondering if this is the case with anyone else using the 64 bit > version of Windows 8, it's the case for me, and I think that if the OS is > 64 bit, then shouldn't most of the tools and applications running on it > also be? Thanks for your input.**** > > **** > > > > **** > > **** > > -- > Meski**** > > http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv**** > > > "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, > you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills**** > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Meski**** > > http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv**** > > > "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, > you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills**** >
