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

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

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
wrote:
> 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.
Release notes updated in r249332.

Thanks,
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

Hi there,

Has the change been formalized in other form than 3.7 release notes?

I'm asking because I would like to use Windows Vista API in this
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13753 and following patches. It looks it is enough
to change the macro definition in WindowsSupport.h. Apparently, cmake does
not set _WIN32_WINNT globally.

- Paweł

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:41 PM Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at
aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Release notes updated in r249332.
>
> Thanks,
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151015/e557bbb7/attachment.html>