Windows 2000 support

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 15:11:28 Tim Krimm wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 04:42:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with
> > the tact of
> > saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that
> > Microsoft
> > supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions
> > will work, and
> > anything that doesn't, oh well.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> I understand that it is a lot of work for Phobos and for the run
> time.
> So we should put an XP+ requirement on the libraries, agreed.
> 
> I also know writing your own "stub libraries" is a lot of work,
> but that is OK.
> 
> 1) I just asking that we try to keep the XP+ requirement out of
> DMD,
> not the libraries.
> 
> 2) I am also asking this only if it is not a lot of work.
> When it becomes difficult than stop doing the win2k support.
> 
> Is it already difficult to keep the XP+ requirement out of the
> DMD compiler?
> Is it a few lines of code or is it a big fix?
> I think 2.053 was the last version that supported win2k.

Given how much Walter likes stuff to run on pretty much any machine ever and 
dislikes breaking backwards compatibility (he's probably the main reason that 
we had any Win9x support in druntime and Phobos at all), I'd expect that he 
wouldn't purposefully doing anything to break compatability with Win2K - 
especially since the compiler isn't the sort of program which is likely to 
need the newer system calls. So, if dmd doesn't work on Win2K, I very much 
doubt that he did that on purpose, but given how integral druntime is to 
running a D program, I would generally have guessed that any Win2K issues were 
there rather than in dmd itself, but I suppose that that depends on whatever's 
failing. If dmd's not working for you, you can always create a bug report, and 
Walter may take care of it. But I really don't know of anything in the 
compiler which would require a newer OS.

- Jonathan M Davis