Duplicate of #40424 ?

You are right. Closing.

I am thinking of a fix for the VS issue. Some thoughts:

I'm not sure what was the main reasoning behind the original change, since I assumed that you could achieve the same thing by simply passing in ArchGroup when calling ./build.sh and that would allow you to control how to build in a hosted environment.

When I build a .NET Core component on linux-x64, I just do ./build.sh. I was hoping that things could be just as simple on other platforms. On linux-arm64, I would like to just do ./build.sh and have everything work out of the box without having to worry about runtime ids, architecture names or property names.

Is that an unrealistic goal?

Basically by default, we always built targeting x64, but because VS runs as an x86 process, we are now picking a different configuration when building inside VS.

VS is an x86-only process, right? Not x64, and not arm64, right? Would it make sense to assume "if we are building in Visual Studio, set the architecture to x64 otherwise use the current processor's architecture"?

I agree with @omajid that it would be nice if ./build.sh just work. In ideal case, all scripted cases can be parametrized but defaults for developers should be as simple as possible.

It would be ideal if VS can always be explicit about architecture. But if that is difficult, I think we can always handle it as special case e.g. Windows x86 vs x64.

Here's another attempt at this: #40453

I dont have access to VS to verify this, unfortunately.