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

Fri Jul 31 06:09:05 PDT 2015

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?
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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D5922&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=-tDq50Av2cwiwvdyutPNJ7PbVFbShIFUapOCDFaAkT4&s=4isCviyssVd55OcjxwYnsykxYAMXGpb14gf4awJu1ec&e=>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150731/a61c904e/attachment.html>