Subject: Re: [boost] Windows XP support survey
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-08 04:43:38
On May 8, 2015 3:27:48 AM EDT, Olaf van der Spek <ml_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Niall Douglas
> <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I'm saying individual libraries can refuse to build on XP if
> > choose after support is dropped.
> > Even if Boost.Build sets _WIN32_WINNT to 0x601 (Win7), it should be
> Why 7 and not Vista?
Vista never had much traction. Smart users upgraded computers preloaded with Vista; I did so on a laptop. As another example, my company bypassed Vista. All its desktops run Windows 7.
> > the case that binaries still generally compile and work on XP. If a
> > library uses a Vista or later API, then the DLL or EXE would refuse
> > to load. If not, they should work fine.
> > What I'm suggesting is that notice is given that XP support is now
> > down to each library maintainer's good wishes, and libraries are
> > coming which won't support XP, and will never support XP.
> I think XP should either be properly supported or it shouldn't be
> supported period.
XP isn't supported now since there's apparently no testing for it. The change is to be clear that the minimum supported Windows OS is 7. That doesn't mean that maintainers or Boost.Config should make changes to purposely sabotage using (parts of) Boost on XP.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk