> On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Alexander Blasche <alexander.blas...@qt.io> > wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Development [mailto:development- >> bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Thiago >> Macieira > > <snip> > >> Good point. Considering that MSVC 2017 is coming (RC is already out), I'd >> also >> be prepared to have it available for 5.9, so I propose: >> >> 5.7 (for comparison, no change): >> 32-bit 64-bit >> MSVC 2013 Y Y >> MSVC 2015 Y Y >> MSVC 2017 N N >> MinGW Y N >> (5 packages) >> >> 5.8: >> 32-bit 64-bit >> MSVC 2013 Y Y >> MSVC 2015 N Y > I am not aware that we are dropping 2015 32bit support in 5.8. I thought the > platform/compiler definition for 5.8 was set in stone a long time ago. > >> MSVC 2017 N N >> MinGW Y Y >> (5 packages) >> >> 5.9: >> 32-bit 64-bit >> MSVC 2013 N Y >> MSVC 2015 N Y >> MSVC 2017 N Y >> MinGW N Y >> (4 packages) > > I don't think we can drop all 32bit support. I do believe MSVC 2017 should be > part of the deal though. That's a good suggestion. Keeping these two options > in mind, I suggest to drop MSVC 2013 32 bit against MSVC 2017 64bit. This > keeps the number of packages the same.
No one suggested dropping *all* 32-bit support just now, but I think we should reduce the number of 32-bit packages now and move towards eliminating them entirely within the next few releases. > >> This also allows us to pick one compiler to provide 32-bit support with if we >> need to. I just think it's time to let it die and get people who need it to >> compile >> from source. > > Compiling Qt from source (especially on Windows) is still a major headache > for our customers. s/customers/users/; this applies to all license types. Also, I don't think this is a relevant counterargument. Compiling Qt from source statically is a major headache for our users as well, yet we don't provide binary packages for Qt built statically. Let's instead focus on the question of whether 32-bit support is actually relevant to enough of our users to bother spending resources on it. >> >> There are no current Intel 32-bit only CPUs that regular Windows runs on, >> only >> legacy. I don't know AMD's product line, but I'd be surprised if it is >> different. > > The currently sold CPU's are not really the measurement stick here. The > measurement stick is actually installed Win 32 systems. Yes, but what's the 32-bit Windows install base which is capable of running Qt? We only support Windows 7 and above now, so I can't imagine it's very many. Perhaps we should try to find some metrics to base our decision on. > > > -- > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io The Qt Company - Silicon Valley Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development