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
|

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

Daniel Sanders via 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
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

_______________________________________________
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

Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Paweł Bylica <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Has the change been formalized in other form than 3.7 release notes?

I'm not certain what other ways we would formalize it beyond the
release notes (and an announcement in the LLVM Weekly updates).

> 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.

There's no issues with using a Vista (or Win 7) API. We're dropping
support for running on XP in 3.8.

~Aaron

>
> - Paweł
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:41 PM Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
12