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

Fri Jul 31 11:39:10 PDT 2015

I don't think we support mingw.org as host since it lacks C++ 11 atomics.
They may be leftover #ifdefs in the code which could be cleaned up.

As a target mingw.org toolchain itself is still quite popular. The
mingw.org-specific code are just few lines locating the lib directory and
adding an include path so we gain almost nothing by removing them. I
personally do not use this toolchain but the mingw-w64 one.

Is someone using clang + mingw.org ?

2015-07-31 20:35 GMT+03:00 Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com>:

> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mingw.org&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=C_U6NKClxQVvjV5S_y3rIGzP_JN7qPdCYo5tilcqUsg&s=gfFeVxphvhTwdW2vY5ual0avTeJAlIRi75NW086JBbs&e=>
> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D5922&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=C_U6NKClxQVvjV5S_y3rIGzP_JN7qPdCYo5tilcqUsg&s=xgqOUi7DV2ipJzDfMuMWiUXp5AkcE9cm1f7E55WHo4w&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
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150731/74f886c9/attachment.html>