From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-433404-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31202 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2013 09:16:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30649 invoked by uid 48); 4 Nov 2013 09:14:56 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/52015] std::to_string does not work under MinGW
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:16:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-52015-4-yIkuJps6mS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52015-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52015-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00181.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015

--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Nathan Ridge from comment #32)
> No one, but they need to know about issues like this in order to do
> something about them.

It's been in the MinGW bug tracker for years, although now closed as "out of
date"

> Above you said that this was "not possible" to fix for
> mingw.

It's not possible to fix in GCC without extraordinary effort for a single
target, which is not going to happen. If a given target wants to support C++11
features then it needs to provide the necessary C99 features. This is not a GCC
issue.

> If you really meant "this would require changes in the mingw
> runtime", perhaps you should have said that. Then, even if you are not
> motivated to approach the MinGW developers to effect such changes, someone
> else (e.g. me) could have.

Fine. How about some ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING USEFUL instead of quibbling over
the particular wording I used in a bugzilla comment?