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

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
>>
>

>
> 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 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
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150731/4aef0cac/attachment.html>

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/20150731/74f886c9/attachment.html>

On 31 July 2015 at 14:34, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> 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've emailed Alex to ask him to highlight this discussion in LLVM Weekly.
Cheers,
-Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150801/16ec54db/attachment.html>