Reid Kleckner
2015-Jul-13 22:26 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
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. 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. 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 >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150713/143d9f85/attachment.html>
Aaron Ballman
2015-Jul-13 22:42 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
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 >
NAKAMURA Takumi
2015-Jul-14 05:55 UTC
[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>