http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #52 from Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net> 2012-02-03 20:44:16 UTC --- > OK. I'd missed that - in which case no objection to the unconditional disable > from me. We can even fixincludes it away! I'm fine with #undef or some such... I think that is a good way forward. If they would fix it in a .x minor OS release, I'm fine with simply requiring the user update their system as well, though, I wouldn't holds ones breath for the update.
