[LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

NAKAMURA Takumi
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:55:40 -0000

+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>