RFC: Dropping Windows XP support

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

RFC: Dropping Windows XP support

Austin Seipp-5
Hi all,

This is a quick discussion about the current system requirements for
Windows builds.

Spurred by a recent[1] LLVM discussion, I'd like to raise the question
of dropping support for Windows XP, and bumping the minimum required
version to Windows Vista or even Windows 7.

For one, Microsoft doesn't support XP anymore, so most people are
moving off it anyway. 'Soon' even XP Embedded will be obsoleted.

But second, Vista and beyond introduced useful new APIs we could use.
I was digging through the LLVM thread and two came out to me:

 1) We could switch to using slim reader/writer locks, which in some
workloads may work out better than critical sections (they'll win on
more read-heavy workloads). The downsides is there's no recursive
locking but we don't use that anyway (and recursive locks are
considered bad by many anyway[2]).

 2) We could probably use an actual condition variables API that was
introduced with Vista. Currently we use a giant EVENT object to
emulate the API, which could be replaced with the real deal.

Both of these could be nice wins for simplicity and performance I think.

I know there are some corporate users out there who this may impact,
and users as well. I'd like to know what people think. Particularly
what version we should standardize on.

FWIW, I don't plan on changing any of this until the 7.12 release at least.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/78419
[2] http://www.zaval.org/resources/library/butenhof1.html

--
Regards,

Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: Dropping Windows XP support

David Feuer
+1. Windows XP was Microsoft's most successful OS thus far, but it's pretty
much dead now. One potentially related potential concern: how will this
change affect Wine support?

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Austin Seipp <austin at well-typed.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a quick discussion about the current system requirements for
> Windows builds.
>
> Spurred by a recent[1] LLVM discussion, I'd like to raise the question
> of dropping support for Windows XP, and bumping the minimum required
> version to Windows Vista or even Windows 7.
>
> For one, Microsoft doesn't support XP anymore, so most people are
> moving off it anyway. 'Soon' even XP Embedded will be obsoleted.
>
> But second, Vista and beyond introduced useful new APIs we could use.
> I was digging through the LLVM thread and two came out to me:
>
>  1) We could switch to using slim reader/writer locks, which in some
> workloads may work out better than critical sections (they'll win on
> more read-heavy workloads). The downsides is there's no recursive
> locking but we don't use that anyway (and recursive locks are
> considered bad by many anyway[2]).
>
>  2) We could probably use an actual condition variables API that was
> introduced with Vista. Currently we use a giant EVENT object to
> emulate the API, which could be replaced with the real deal.
>
> Both of these could be nice wins for simplicity and performance I think.
>
> I know there are some corporate users out there who this may impact,
> and users as well. I'd like to know what people think. Particularly
> what version we should standardize on.
>
> FWIW, I don't plan on changing any of this until the 7.12 release at least.
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/78419
> [2] http://www.zaval.org/resources/library/butenhof1.html
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
> Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20141107/b42a58dd/attachment-0001.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: Dropping Windows XP support

Gershom Bazerman
In reply to this post by Austin Seipp-5
One concern here is that even with XP falling out of support, Windows Server 2003 remains supported through July 2015, and so we should give it a little chunk of time after that falls out of support from Microsoft before we stop supporting that. I think the limitations in Server 2003 are roughly the same as XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/windows-server-2003/

However, the next Windows Server (2008) should share all Vista features.

Cheers,
Gershom


On November 7, 2014 at 1:16:39 PM, Austin Seipp (austin at well-typed.com) wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a quick discussion about the current system requirements for
> Windows builds.
>
> Spurred by a recent[1] LLVM discussion, I'd like to raise the question
> of dropping support for Windows XP, and bumping the minimum required
> version to Windows Vista or even Windows 7.
>
> For one, Microsoft doesn't support XP anymore, so most people are
> moving off it anyway. 'Soon' even XP Embedded will be obsoleted.
>
> But second, Vista and beyond introduced useful new APIs we could use.
> I was digging through the LLVM thread and two came out to me:
>
> 1) We could switch to using slim reader/writer locks, which in some
> workloads may work out better than critical sections (they'll win on
> more read-heavy workloads). The downsides is there's no recursive
> locking but we don't use that anyway (and recursive locks are
> considered bad by many anyway[2]).
>
> 2) We could probably use an actual condition variables API that was
> introduced with Vista. Currently we use a giant EVENT object to
> emulate the API, which could be replaced with the real deal.
>
> Both of these could be nice wins for simplicity and performance I think.
>
> I know there are some corporate users out there who this may impact,
> and users as well. I'd like to know what people think. Particularly
> what version we should standardize on.
>
> FWIW, I don't plan on changing any of this until the 7.12 release at least.
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/78419
> [2] http://www.zaval.org/resources/library/butenhof1.html
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
> Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: Dropping Windows XP support

Bulat Ziganshin-2
In reply to this post by Austin Seipp-5
Hello Austin,

Friday, November 7, 2014, 9:16:22 PM, you wrote:

> For one, Microsoft doesn't support XP anymore, so most people are
> moving off it anyway. 'Soon' even XP Embedded will be obsoleted.

at  the  end  of  http://freearc.org/Statistics.aspx page you can find
stats  about  OS  used  by  ysers  of my program - archiver written in
haskell.  these  are  14%  of  *geeks* using the l;atest alpha version
(stable version of my program ddoesn't report this parameter)

so  dropping  XP support means that newer GHC can't be used anymore to
compile general-purpose programs targeting large user audience

--
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at gmail.com