https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111170
--- Comment #5 from LIU Hao <lh_mouse at 126 dot com> --- (In reply to Costas Argyris from comment #4) > A couple of comments: > > 1) Isn't Windows XP officially not supported any more? If that is the > case, does it make sense to introduce a new configure option solely to deal > with an unsupported host? I'm not even sure why this is called a > regression, given that it breaks something that is not officially supported. I don't think we have declared Windows XP unsupported. There was even an attempt to maintain Windows 98: https://www.mail-archive.com/mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21399.html I think the decision is probably we have default as Windows 10 but don't break old systems by intention, so when someone requests it they get it. > 2) Would it be easier if, instead of excluding the manifest via a new > configure option, we somehow made the manifest file itself smart enough to > ignore itself when running on Windows XP? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/win7appqual/compatibility---application-manifest#manifestation-of-change ``` Applications without a Compatibility section in their manifest will receive Windows Vista behavior by default on Windows 7 and future Windows versions. Note that Windows XP and Windows Vista ignore this manifest section and it has no impact on them. ``` But Microsoft documentation sometimes lies. If Windows XP does not ignore the manifest and fails instead, we will need a solution. > which has separate entries for all the Windows versions, marking them as > 'supportedOS'. > > Would it be possible to do this in the GCC manifest and solve this problem, > or did I misunderstand how the compatibility section works? XP was not assigned a UUID because it (2001) predated this manifest thing (2004 or 2005 I guess? since MSVCR80).
