[LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP (original) (raw)

Greg Bedwell gregbedwell at gmail.com
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 >> WIN32WINNT 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 >> <PaulRobinson 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.orgD5922&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4bhmuhMHA&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>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list