llvm dev - Oct 2014 - [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141030/5faa1742/attachment.html>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
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.
I am in favor of this switch, assuming there are no strong objections.

~Aaron

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> 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.
>
I would personally prefer we jump to Windows 7 instead.  Windows 7
introduced useful condition variable APIs over what Windows Vista provided
like TryAcquireSRWLockExclusive.

>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141030/756c16ba/attachment.html>

As long as the new APIs are also supported on current MinGW-w64 compilers, I am
for this switch.

--
Johannes S. Mueller-Roemer, MSc
Wiss. Mitarbeiter - Interactive Engineering Technologies (IET)

Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD
Fraunhoferstr. 5  |  64283 Darmstadt  |  Germany
Tel +49 6151 155-606  |  Fax +49 6151 155-139
johannes.mueller-roemer at igd.fraunhofer.de  |  www.igd.fraunhofer.de

From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
Behalf Of Reid Kleckner
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 21:30
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141031/5e9582e3/attachment.html>

+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
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141031/05c57809/attachment.html>

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
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141031/58f149d0/attachment.html>