On quarta-feira, 23 de novembro de 2016 02:06:14 PST Jake Petroules wrote:
> > If we still have time, I'd like to see MinGW 64-bit for 5.8, so we can
> > drop
> > the 32-bit binary build in time for 5.9.
> >
> > Otherwise, if we have to wait for 5.9 to bring MinGW 64-bit, then we can't
> > drop 32-bit until 5.10.
>
> Agreed. We should also consider dropping 32-bit MSVC since we've had both
> for a while and we only support Windows 7 and above now, which should mean
> adoption is good enough to do so.
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
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)
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.
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.
Intel does have new 32-bit only SoCs like [1], but whether Windows 10 IoT Core
will run on them, I don't know. Even if it does, I doubt users will use our
desktop binaries.
[1] http://ark.intel.com/products/79084/Intel-Quark-SoC-X1000-16K-Cache-400-MHz
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
