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>
Martell Malone
2015-Jul-31 20:55 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
> > 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. >I don't see that in the docs but it makes sense that it is not supported. 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.Yes I am not saying that we should remove this code its very easy to keep. I just think that if someone is experiencing issues with this setup though they should pointed to use mingw-w64 before filing issues as it is officially supported. This is for all issues outside lib and include directories that is All online documentation for the windows-gnu target should probably be mingw-w64 specific if there is any that is. On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote:> 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/20150731/9aababa0/attachment.html>
It's a good idea to point to the mingw-w64 distributions if asked. 2015-07-31 23:55 GMT+03:00 Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com>:> 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. >> > I don't see that in the docs but it makes sense that it is not supported. > > 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. > > Yes I am not saying that we should remove this code its very easy to keep. > I just think that if someone is experiencing issues with this setup though > they should pointed to use mingw-w64 before filing issues as it is > officially supported. > This is for all issues outside lib and include directories that is > All online documentation for the windows-gnu target should probably be > mingw-w64 specific if there is any that is. >On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote:> 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/20150801/251b2d93/attachment.html>
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
- [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
- [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
- [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP
- [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP