Add 32-bit Windows to our primary platform list

[mattcaswell]

We already have 64-bit Windows on our primary platform list, and 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. We should probably also have 32-bit Windows on the list.

[arapov]

We might want to add it to our CIs too

We must. The question is how easy it is for us. Do we have 32-bit architecture and Windows available via GitHub actions?

@quarckster, wdyt?

It looks like Microsoft still supports 32-bit architecture:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-au/windows-hardware/design/minimum/minimum-hardware-requirements-overview

* Beginning with Windows 10, version 2004, all new Windows 10 systems will be required to use
64-bit builds and Microsoft will no longer release 32-bit builds for OEM distribution. This does
not impact 32-bit customer systems that are manufactured with earlier versions of Windows 10;
Microsoft remains committed to providing feature and security updates on these devices,
including continued 32-bit media availability in non-OEM channels to support various upgrade
installation scenarios.

Windows 11 doesn't run on 32-bits, as it doesn't satisfy the minimum RAM requirement. And I didn't check Windows Server...

[t8m]

We already have 32 bit Windows builds in the CI, so IMO no action needed on the CI side. Of course we do not build & test them on 32 bit Windows installations but that should not matter much as hopefully the 32 bit support on 64 bit Windows installs is fully compatible.

On the other hand we do not really have proper 32 bit Linux testing.

[hlandau]

Note that we currently have a baseline Windows support level of XP (-D_WIN32_WINNT=0x0501). We should probably be covering this in CI.

Actually, XP is not even listed on our platform list except for ia64 as a community platform (which is just comical...). So it seems like we have an incongruity here.

Either we should add XP to our platform list and test it in CI or we should allow bumping minimum _WIN32_WINNT, which would allow us to drop some XP compatibility code (and ease merging e.g. RCU).

I'd be interested in data from our community on how many people are relying on OpenSSL working on XP at this point.

[mattcaswell]

I am opening a vote on this one:

Topic: Accept the WG recommendation to adopt 32-bit Windows (VC-WIN32) to our primary platform list
Proposed by: Matt Caswell
Issue link: https://github.com/openssl/general-policies/pull/61
Public: yes
Opened: 2024-01-31
Closed: YYY-MM-DD
Accepted:  yes/no  (for: X, against: Y, abstained: Z, not voted: W)

  Anton      [  ]
  Kurt       [  ]
  Matt       [+1]
  Richard    [+1]
  Tim        [+1]

[mattcaswell]

@kroeckx @arapov

[kroeckx]

Voting +1

[quarckster]

Either we should add XP to our platform list and test it in CI or we should allow bumping minimum _WIN32_WINNT, which would allow us to drop some XP compatibility code (and ease merging e.g. RCU).

I'd be interested in data from our community on how many people are relying on OpenSSL working on XP at this point.

Windows XP has been EOL for ages, I'm for bumping the minimum version requirement.

We might want to add it in our CIs too

32-bit openssl builds 64-bit Windows is a real use case scenario and as noticed @t8m we have it in the CI.

An action item for this issue should be updating https://www.openssl.org/policies/general-supplemental/platforms.html and bumping _WIN32_WINNT

[mattcaswell]

An action item for this issue should be updating https://www.openssl.org/policies/general-supplemental/platforms.html and bumping _WIN32_WINNT

Note that this is a PR not an issue - the PR updates the platforms list.

[mattcaswell]

@arapov - can I take your approval of the PR as a +1 on the vote?

[ghost]

@arapov We need your approval. Please respond to Matt / to this ticket with your vote.

[arapov]

@arapov - can I take your approval of the PR as a +1 on the vote?

Yes, my approval of this PR is +1

[mattcaswell]

Vote has been closed and passed:

Topic: Accept the WG recommendation to adopt 32-bit Windows (VC-WIN32) to our primary platform list
Proposed by: Matt Caswell
Issue link: https://github.com/openssl/general-policies/pull/61
Public: yes
Opened: 2024-01-31
Closed: 2024-07-02
Accepted:  yes  (for: 5, against: 0, abstained: 0, not voted: 0)

  Anton      [+1]
  Kurt       [+1]
  Matt       [+1]
  Richard    [+1]
  Tim        [+1]

I have recorded the vote and pushed this PR.