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 It's been in the MinGW bug tracker for years, although now closed as "out of date" 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