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

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<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141031/58f149d0/attachment.html>

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/20150713/1def1c45/attachment.html>

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>

(cc'ing the new list address; sorry for the duplicate)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
> Did we conclude that we've dropped Win XP support now?
>
> If so, I'll stop building the win snapshots in xp-compat mode and add
> a note to the 3.8 release notes.
>
>  - Hans
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:26 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.
>>
>> 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.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> (cc'ing the new list address; sorry for the duplicate)
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
>> Did we conclude that we've dropped Win XP support now?
I believe we have, yes.

~Aaron
>>
>> If so, I'll stop building the win snapshots in xp-compat mode and
add
>> a note to the 3.8 release notes.
>>
>>  - Hans
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:26 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.
>>>
>>> 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
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev