So there is one for 64 bit ARM, one for 32 bit ARM, one for X86, one for X86 64 bit, etc.
You have made more than one APK for each release of your app, one for each ABI.x86, x86-64 and 64 bit ARM all emulate 32 bit ARM. That is your lib/ directory contains just armeabi-v7a as a subdirectory. You have native code in your app, but you are relying on ABI compatibility to work.In this case in your APK you'd expect to see multiple subdirectories under lib/ in your APK, with names like x86, armeabi-v7a, etc You do have native code in your app, but you have.
In this case the lib/ subdirectory of your APK you'd expect to be empty. It was written entirely in Java or Kotlin, and none-of the third party libraries you use use native code either. You have no native code in your app (no.There are a few possibilities for how you have chosen to build your app. This gets a little complicated, and you don't provide many details about your app. There is no such thing as "installing as 32 bit" or "installing as 64 bit".
On the other hand, we don't see any '/lib' folder as the Google article suggests to check. It has a Snapdragon 808 CPU which uses ARM architecture. The device I'm testing with is a 'Moto X Pure Edition' running Android 7.0. Is it possible that somehow the 32-bit version is being installed when using Google Play and therefore works fine? I'm concerned my app may actually have problems when truly installed as 64-bit, so any clarification on the inconsistencies described above would be appreciated. I'm not sure why it's behaving inconsistently. When I install it from Google Play, it works exactly as expected, however when I test the APK locally using the ADB command on 64-bit hardware (as Google suggested in this section 'Test your app on 64-bit hardware'), my app has UI issues. I am pretty confident my app supports 64-bit devices based on the suggestions mentioned in the article. The reason I ask is related to Google's recent communication regarding apps needing to support 64-bit devices.
0 kommentar(er)
