llvm dev - Jul 2015 - [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

+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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150714/3e806066/attachment.html>

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>

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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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
>>
>