Skip to content

Add input to specify windows architecture target to build vulkan-1.lib #16

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

Open
wants to merge 29 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

LittleCoinCoin
Copy link

Hello,

I know it's probably a minor set of the users but I needed to make sure that my project using Vulkan would also compile for Win32. This didn't seem to be covered by your action as I understood everything was set to x64 by default; I hope I didn't miss anything. If you think it's too specific, feel free to leave it pending. At least, I wanted to share my solution for the few people that might be interested.

I added an optional input to be able to select x64 or Win32 with a description mentioning that this is relevant for windows only. Then, there is a catch: vsdevenv can be set with x86 but not Win32, so I added a step in the action to translate the arch to x86 in the only case that user want to set up vulkan for Win32.

The windows test for powershell was replaced with a test including the arch.

P.S. I am sorry, the intermediate tests were a bit messy and I didn't know about action-tmate until 10min ago...

Eliott added 29 commits July 28, 2023 14:34
Major:
- windows-latest is windows-2022 so it requires Visual Studio 17 2022
Major:
- reverting atempting ci test correction since it should be the issue.
That's because Win32 is the default value we will use in Windows systems arch matrix in other github actions
@humbletim
Copy link
Owner

(half a year later... apologies for delay reviewing!)

This is really great! In the back of my mind I remember wanting to keep the x64 specifier near to the surface -- so that one day x86 support could be revisited. I am very glad you were able to figure out a working recipe and get it working.

For now I will plan on leaving this PR open as a reference and hope to find more time coming up to look into the best way to integrate/merge the enhanced feature into mainline. Thanks!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants