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

Fri Jul 31 13:55:54 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.
>
I don't see that in the docs but it makes sense that it is not supported.

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.

Yes I am not saying that we should remove this code its very easy to keep.
I just think that if someone is experiencing issues with this setup though
they should pointed to use mingw-w64 before filing issues as it is
officially supported.
This is for all issues outside lib and include directories that is
All online documentation for the windows-gnu target should probably be
mingw-w64 specific if there is any that is.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20150731/9aababa0/attachment.html>