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

[JonY <jon_y at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

On 10/31/2012 19:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 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 libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
>> 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
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html ?
> 

They are required to use the latest mingw-w64, the problem was that the
vfswprintf that libstdc++ expects isn't the same as the one MS provides,
so I've wrote a redirector to use the vsnwprintf, more precisely, the
mingw C99 compliant __mingw_vsnwprintf.

std::to_wstring and std::to_string work according to some simple tests.

I guess the current comment about require mingw-w64 trunk at least r5437
is OK for the changes page. It should probably note that this change is
mingw-w64 specific, with w64 as the vendor key.

> 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.

OK, I will remove it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature