From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id D0CF7385841F; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:25:17 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D0CF7385841F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1700051117; bh=cEJ6gDup9XOAh3BqXovixQdUyBfm8m+PuQh1GxqSDQ8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HlXPQN+jyAfD43B80t1atmp0JwQ0cXuVNfeSeW7b8T7aQ44qfyQ0eZmlYGR2XILwf zyGRBmEeWiOXMSf/zSOXqBOcNcoY41K2g1NYKSI0gKQpNhPj2RVnvRYb5PkKI3sxtt rCqPv1npPXIldCrgyJn/Tk4QSrTwtTs3EYrw9V9U= From: "lh_mouse at 126 dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/111170] [13/14 regression] Malformed manifest does not allow to run gcc on Windows XP (Accessing a corrupted shared library) since r13-6552-gd11e088210a551 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:25:17 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: lh_mouse at 126 dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111170 --- Comment #5 from LIU Hao --- (In reply to Costas Argyris from comment #4) > A couple of comments: >=20 > 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 de= al > with an unsupported host? I'm not even sure why this is called a > regression, given that it breaks something that is not officially support= ed. 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/msg2139= 9.html I think the decision is probably we have default as Windows 10 but don't br= eak 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 t= he manifest and fails instead, we will need a solution. > which has separate entries for all the Windows versions, marking them as > 'supportedOS'. >=20 > Would it be possible to do this in the GCC manifest and solve this proble= m, > 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).=