Change i686-pc-windows-msvc from Tier 1 with host tools => Tier 1 without host tools - #3999
Change i686-pc-windows-msvc from Tier 1 with host tools => Tier 1 without host tools#3999jieyouxu wants to merge 6 commits into
i686-pc-windows-msvc from Tier 1 with host tools => Tier 1 without host tools#3999Conversation
jieyouxu
added
the
T-compiler
|
Normally we start RFC FCPs only after giving some time for discussions, but for this case I'd like to start the process early before we run into more obscure i686 msvc issues. @rfcbot fcp merge compiler |
|
@jieyouxu has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
rust-rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
| Further, the distance between now and the availability of 64-bit x86 CPUs is over 20 years, starting from the Athlon 64 in 2003. | ||
|
|
||
| Rust currently supports the following major Windows targets. | ||
| Download counts for the host toolchain and `std` were extracted from the public dashboard [covering the period from 2026-06-01 to 2026-06-30][static-rlo-dl-counts]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line says the counts cover 2026-06-01 to 2026-06-30, but the static-rlo-dl-counts URL it cites is pinned to from_ts=1736618152507&to_ts=1739210152507, which decode to 2025-01-11 → 2025-02-10 UTC.
Possibly harmless but just in case, the URL also has refresh_mode=sliding&live=true, so the dashboard may just display a current window when opened, with the pinned params being stale from when the link was copied. But as cited, the stated period and the link's parameters don't match, so it's ambiguous which window the table figures actually reflect.
Could you confirm the date range behind the numbers? If they're from early 2025, it might be worth grabbing a refreshed snapshot before FCP completes, the usage data carries a lot of weight for the demotion argument, and this would put it on unambiguous footing. (To be clear, no objection to the demotion itself, just want the citation to be solid.)
4 participants
Important
Since RFCs involve many conversations at once that can be difficult to follow, please use review comment threads on the text changes instead of direct comments on the RFC.
If you don't have a particular section of the RFC to comment on, you can click on the "Comment on this file" button on the top-right corner of the diff, to the right of the "Viewed" checkbox. This will create a separate thread even if others have commented on the file too.
Summary
This RFC proposes to drop
i686-pc-windows-msvchost tools, i.e.Additional context
This was discussed in:
This RFC was drafted by @workingjubilee, I only did some minor editorial/logistical edits.
cc @rust-lang/compiler
cc
*-pc-windows-msvctarget maintainers: @ChrisDenton @dpaoliello @Fulgen301 @lambdageek @sivadeilra @wesleywiserRendered