This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Patch] Remove _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BROKEN_VSWPRINTF from (was Re: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-10-29), Stage 1 to end soon)

On 31 October 2012 11:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 31 October 2012 10:25, JonY wrote:
>> On 10/30/2012 01:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Status
>>> ======
>>> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
>>> on Monday, November 5th.  If you have still patches for new features you'd
>>> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon.  Patches
>>> posted before the freeze, but reviewed shortly after the freeze, may
>>> still go in, further changes should be just bugfixes and documentation
>>> fixes.
>> Somebody with commit rights please push "[Patch] Remove
>> _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BROKEN_VSWPRINTF from mingw32-w64/os_defines.h".
>> Kai has already approved, but is off for the week.
> I could have done that, if it had been sent to the right lists. All
> libstdc++ patches go to both gcc-patches and
> please.
> Let's move this to the libstdc++ list, I have some questions about the patch.

It looks like the workaround is in mingw not in GCC, so is it a
problem that it won't be possible to use GCC 4.8 with existing mingw
versions, or are users required to use a brand new mingw to use a new
GCC?  Should that be documented in ?

Why is the define commented out by the patch, not simply removed?
If it's not needed then it's not needed. We have subversion to track
change history, we don't need to leave dead code lying around with
comments explaining why it's dead.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]