From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4149 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2010 09:32:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 1913 invoked by uid 48); 30 Apr 2010 09:31:52 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100430093152.1912.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/36231] ostream includes unistd.h outside namespace std, polluting In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg03319.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-30 09:31 ------- To be clear: by definition closing something as WONTFIX is *never* wrong. Closing something as INVALID or FIXED can be wrong. The reason being that it's up to the maintainers to decide that something will not be fixed any time soon and should be simply resolved in the bug database as WONTFIX. Thus it's perfectly ok for the maintainers (like Jon and me) to close this as WONTFIX, even if, in principle, some time in the far future, say breaking the ABI at the same time, one can imagine including fewer C headers as implementation detail. I hope now you understand. That said, if you like seeing your baby around, let's keep in around, but, as I said, don't expect any substantive changes any time soon. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36231