Yes, you can target both x86 and x64 with the same code base in the same project. In general, things will Just Work if you create the right solution configurations in VS.NET (although P/Invoke to entirely unmanaged DLLs will most likely require some conditional code): the items that I found to require special attention are:
- References to outside managed assemblies with the same name but their own specific bitness (this also applies to COM interop assemblies)
- The MSI package (which, as has already been noted, will need to target either x86 or x64)
- Any custom .NET Installer Class-based actions in your MSI package
The assembly reference issue can't be solved entirely within VS.NET, as it will only allow you to add a reference with a given name to a project once. To work around this, edit your project file manually (in VS, right-click your project file in the Solution Explorer, select Unload Project, then right-click again and select Edit). After adding a reference to, say, the x86 version of an assembly, your project file will contain something like:
<Reference Include="Filename, ..., processorArchitecture=x86">
<HintPath>C:\path\to\x86\DLL</HintPath>
</Reference>
Wrap that Reference tag inside an ItemGroup tag indicating the solution configuration it applies to, e.g:
<ItemGroup Condition=" '$(Configuration)|$(Platform)' == 'Debug|x86' ">
<Reference ...>....</Reference>
</ItemGroup>
Then, copy and paste the entire ItemGroup tag, and edit it to contain the details of your 64-bit DLL, e.g.:
<ItemGroup Condition=" '$(Configuration)|$(Platform)' == 'Debug|x64' ">
<Reference Include="Filename, ..., processorArchitecture=AMD64">
<HintPath>C:\path\to\x64\DLL</HintPath>
</Reference>
</ItemGroup>
After reloading your project in VS.NET, the Assembly Reference dialog will be a bit confused by these changes, and you may encounter some warnings about assemblies with the wrong target processor, but all your builds will work just fine.
Solving the MSI issue is up next, and unfortunately this will require a non-VS.NET tool: I prefer Caphyon's Advanced Installer for that purpose, as it pulls off the basic trick involved (create a common MSI, as well as 32-bit and 64-bit specific MSIs, and use an .EXE setup launcher to extract the right version and do the required fixups at runtime) very, very well.
You can probably achieve the same results using other tools or the Windows Installer XML (WiX) toolset, but Advanced Installer makes things so easy (and is quite affordable at that) that I've never really looked at alternatives.
One thing you may still require WiX for though, even when using Advanced Installer, is for your .NET Installer Class custom actions. Although it's trivial to specify certain actions that should only run on certain platforms (using the VersionNT64 and NOT VersionNT64 execution conditions, respectively), the built-in AI custom actions will be executed using the 32-bit Framework, even on 64-bit machines.
This may be fixed in a future release, but for now (or when using a different tool to create your MSIs that has the same issue), you can use WiX 3.0's managed custom action support to create action DLLs with the proper bitness that will be executed using the corresponding Framework.
Edit: as of version 8.1.2, Advanced Installer correctly supports 64-bit custom actions. Since my original answer, its price has increased quite a bit, unfortunately, even though it's still extremely good value when compared to InstallShield and its ilk...
Edit: If your DLLs are registered in the GAC, you can also use the standard reference tags this way (SQLite as an example):
<ItemGroup Condition="'$(Platform)' == 'x86'">
<Reference Include="System.Data.SQLite, Version=1.0.80.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=db937bc2d44ff139, processorArchitecture=x86" />
</ItemGroup>
<ItemGroup Condition="'$(Platform)' == 'x64'">
<Reference Include="System.Data.SQLite, Version=1.0.80.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=db937bc2d44ff139, processorArchitecture=AMD64" />
</ItemGroup>
The condition is also reduced down to all build types, release or debug, and just specifies the processor architecture.
Best Answer
Add both the 32-bit and 64-bit directories to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
If you do this, then the ld.so for 32-bit or 64-bit will use the correct libraries.
e.g. A 32-bit test app "test32" and 64-bit test app "test", with a locally-installed copy of a (newer version of) gcc and binutils in a user homedir, to avoid clobbering the system-wide install of gcc:
=> export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/user1/pub/gcc+binutils/lib:/home/user1/pub/gcc+binutils/lib64 => ldd ./test32 libstdc++.so.6 => /home/user1/pub/gcc+binutils/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00111000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /home/user1/pub/gcc+binutils/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00221000) => ldd ./test libstdc++.so.6 => /home/user1/pub/gcc+binutils/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00007ffff7cfc000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /home/user1/pub/gcc+binutils/lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007ffff7ad2000)(Less interesting library paths removed)
This shows that the loaders know to ignore the libraries of the wrong architecture, at least on this Scientific Linux 6.3 (RHEL-derived) system. I would expect other distros to work similarly, but haven't tested this.
This may have only started being the case more recently than your (unspecified) distro version, however.