RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Reid Kleckner-2
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:

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
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Aaron Ballman-2
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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.

I am in favor of this switch, assuming there are no strong objections.

~Aaron
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

David Majnemer
In reply to this post by Reid Kleckner-2
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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:

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.

I would personally prefer we jump to Windows 7 instead.  Windows 7 introduced useful condition variable APIs over what Windows Vista provided like TryAcquireSRWLockExclusive.
 

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
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian
In reply to this post by Reid Kleckner-2

As long as the new APIs are also supported on current MinGW-w64 compilers, I am for this switch.

 

--

Johannes S. Mueller-Roemer, MSc

Wiss. Mitarbeiter - Interactive Engineering Technologies (IET)

 

Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD

Fraunhoferstr. 5  |  64283 Darmstadt  |  Germany

Tel +49 6151 155-606  |  Fax +49 6151 155-139

[hidden email]  |  www.igd.fraunhofer.de

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Reid Kleckner
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 21:30
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: [LLVMdev] RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

 

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:

 

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
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Rowan, Jim
In reply to this post by Reid Kleckner-2
+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:

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
[hidden email]         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
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Robinson, Paul-3

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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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:

 

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
[hidden email]         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
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Greg Bedwell
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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:

 

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
[hidden email]         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
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Reid Kleckner-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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:

 

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
[hidden email]         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
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev




_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Aaron Ballman-2
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> [hidden email]         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
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

NAKAMURA Takumi

+1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.

2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]>:

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> [hidden email]         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
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Greg Bedwell
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?
Thanks!
-Greg

On 14 July 2015 at 06:55, NAKAMURA Takumi <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.

2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]>:

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> [hidden email]         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
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Aaron Ballman-2
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Greg Bedwell <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.
>>
>> 2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> > 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
>>> >> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Martell Malone
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Greg Bedwell <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.
>>
>> 2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> > 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
>>> >> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Yaron Keren
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 <[hidden email]>:
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Greg Bedwell <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.
>>
>> 2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> > 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
>>> >> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Martell Malone
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Greg Bedwell <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.
>>
>> 2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> > 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
>>> >> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev




_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Yaron Keren
It's a good idea to point to the mingw-w64 distributions if asked.


2015-07-31 23:55 GMT+03:00 Martell Malone <[hidden email]>:
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Greg Bedwell <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1. We may focus Windows 7, aka NT6.1, as the baseline.
>>
>> 2015年7月14日(火) 7:48 Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> > 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
>>> >> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         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
>>> >>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev




_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Drop support running LLVM on Windows XP

Greg Bedwell
In reply to this post by Aaron Ballman-2


On 31 July 2015 at 14:34, Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]> 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
 

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Reid Kleckner-2
(cc'ing the new list address; sorry for the duplicate)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Hans Wennborg <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> (cc'ing the new list address; sorry for the duplicate)
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Hans Wennborg <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>>> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Aaron Ballman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> (cc'ing the new list address; sorry for the duplicate)
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Hans Wennborg <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>>>> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
12