[LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Fri Jul 31 10:35:27 PDT 2015

>
> I think we should definitely get a note into the weekly update. We may
> also want to get it into the 3.7 release notes as a warning to users.

+1

As long as the new APIs are also supported on current MinGW-w64 compilers,
> I am for this switch.
>
May I also suggest dropping support for mingw.org toolchains for both hosts
and targets
They are pre windows 7 and only support 32bit x86 targets

mingw-w64 has been maintained to support newer api's and now supports x64
and arm.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Greg Bedwell <gregbedwell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It sounds like there are no objections to jumping to Windows 7 as the
> > baseline.  Is it worth getting a note added to the next LLVM weekly to
> give
> > the potential change a bit of a wider viewership before going ahead with
> it
> > or are we in a position to just do this now?  If so, what are the actual
> > mechanics of the change, and who'd like to do it?
>
> I think we should definitely get a note into the weekly update. We may
> also want to get it into the 3.7 release notes as a warning to users.
>
> I suspect we're in a position to make the switch now. As for the
> mechanics, I'm less certain of all the places we have to touch, but
> intuition suggests cmake and WindowsSupport.h.
>
> ~Aaron
>
> > Thanks!
> > -Greg
> >
> > On 14 July 2015 at 06:55, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.
> >>
> >> 2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> >>> > Nobody objected to raising the bar, so I think we can go ahead and do
> >>> > this.
> >>> > Keeping the XP support until 3.7 ships seems reasonable as it's less
> >>> > disruptive.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed.
> >>>
> >>> > Should we consider bypassing Vista and jumping to 7 as the lowest
> >>> > supported
> >>> > Windows version as David suggested? I think we should document 7 as
> the
> >>> > recommended baseline. After we start using some of the newer APIs, we
> >>> > can
> >>> > see if users complain and evaluate the burden of maintaining Vista
> >>> > support
> >>> > at that time.
> >>>
> >>> I think it's reasonable to switch to Windows 7 at this point. Vista's
> >>> mainstream support ended in 2012 and only has extended support until
> >>> 2017, so it's sunsetting already.
> >>>
> >>> ~Aaron
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Greg Bedwell <gregbedwell at gmail.com
> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi all,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It looks like this conversation stalled.  I have a local patch that
> >>> >> I'd
> >>> >> like to send upstream (automatically generating Windows crash dumps
> on
> >>> >> clang/LLVM crashes) that makes use of a Windows API function that
> >>> >> requires
> >>> >> _WIN32_WINNT set to 0x0600 at minimum so I'd like to restart the
> >>> >> conversation!
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As there have so far been no objections that I've seen and we're
> >>> >> branching
> >>> >> imminently, it feels like a perfect time to make this change as soon
> >>> >> as the
> >>> >> release branch is taken, and adding a release note for 3.7 to the
> >>> >> effect of
> >>> >> it being the final version supporting XP.  I don't think there's
> been
> >>> >> a
> >>> >> clear conclusion on what we should raise it to though.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Any thoughts on this?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >> -Greg
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On 31 October 2014 at 16:30, Robinson, Paul
> >>> >> <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> We formally support our toolchain only on Windows 7 onward, so it's
> >>> >>> okay
> >>> >>> with us.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> (Please make sure this goes in the release notes when you start
> doing
> >>> >>> something not supported in XP and/or Vista.)
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> --paulr
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> >>> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
> >>> >>> Behalf Of Jim Rowan
> >>> >>> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 1:05 PM
> >>> >>> To: Reid Kleckner
> >>> >>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> +1
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I'd like to raise our baseline Windows system requirements to
> Vista,
> >>> >>> dropping support for running LLVM on Windows XP. Microsoft dropped
> >>> >>> support
> >>> >>> for XP half a year ago in April 2014.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Our current status is that we require VS 2012 to build LLVM, and VS
> >>> >>> 2012
> >>> >>> only runs on Vista+, but it has the ability produce binaries that
> run
> >>> >>> on XP.
> >>> >>> During the C++11-pocalypse, users expressed interest in keeping
> this
> >>> >>> working. I'm proposing that we drop support for this.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Vista introduced a lot of handy system APIs that could
> significantly
> >>> >>> simplify LLVM's Support library. For example, I'd really like to
> use
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> blessed one-time initialization routines in this CL:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D5922
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Vista also introduced a bunch of condition variable APIs that I
> know
> >>> >>> less
> >>> >>> about, but that's another reason we might want to raise our base
> >>> >>> requirement
> >>> >>> as people look into parallel LTO and codegen. It also seems likely
> >>> >>> that we
> >>> >>> will want to use some of the new C++11 library features that are
> only
> >>> >>> present in newer CRTs, which don't run on XP.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Please respond if you have any objections. If there are no strong
> >>> >>> objections, I think we can start using Vista+ APIs in a week or so.
> >>> >>> We can
> >>> >>> still change our minds and revert stuff before the release if users
> >>> >>> feel
> >>> >>> this is too short notice.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> >>> >>> hosted
> >>> >>> by the Linux Foundation
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150731/4aef0cac/attachment.html>