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

Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Oct 5 11:19:37 PDT 2015


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> (cc'ing the new list address; sorry for the duplicate)
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Did we conclude that we've dropped Win XP support now?

I believe we have, yes.

~Aaron

>>
>> If so, I'll stop building the win snapshots in xp-compat mode and add
>> a note to the 3.8 release notes.
>>
>>  - Hans
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:26 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list