Fix minimal Windows version

[cmb69]

As of PHP 8.3.0, Windows 8/Server 2012 are the minimum requirement. However, PR #9104 only updated _WIN32_WINNT, but not WINVER[1], NTDDI_VERSION[2] nor the manifest[3].

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog/using-the-windows-headers
[2] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog/using-the-windows-headers
[3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sbscs/application-manifests

[cmb69]

Only now noticed the "ABI break" label, but I think there is no ABI break for practical purposes. Shall I revert the commit from PHP-8.3 nonetheless?

[ndossche]

I don't know, it doesn't run on Windows 7 anyway, but who knows who uses NTDDI_VERSION ?

[cmb69]

I don't know, it doesn't run on Windows 7 anyway, […]

I wonder what happens exactly (without this patch). Does it try to start up, and then reports a missing function? Or would it crash?

The change to the manifest should prevent starting up in the first place.

, but who knows who uses NTDDI_VERSION ?

I think WINVER (which is passed as define via CFLAGS) is more relevant, but I guess nobody uses either. Couldn't find any usage in the php organization, nor in win32service.

[cmb69]

@bukka, would you consider this change to be a problem for PHP-8.3?

[ndossche]

I wonder what happens exactly (without this patch). Does it try to start up, and then reports a missing function? Or would it crash?

It does not complete startup, once you launch the EXE you get a "missing procedure" error from Windows.

[bukka]

@cmb69 I will trust your judgement on this. I don't mind to leave it in 8.3 if you think it's safe.

[cmb69]

I'm lacking the imagination for what these constants could be explicitly used. I mean, clearly so far somebody could have build an extension which works on Windows 7, but when trying to start PHP to use it, it would fail to start anyway.

Of course, someone might use WINVER to define the upper bound of an array in an extension, but then accessing [WINVER] would be a buffer overflow. But why would anyone do this?

I'd say this change is not guilty, until proven otherwise.