On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> In gcc-5/changes.html the section about __has_include and __has_include_next
> says:
>
> The header search paths for __has_include_next and __has_include_next are
> equivalent to those of the standard directive #include and the extension
> #include_next respectively.
>
> I think the first __has_include_next should be an __has_include.
I agree and just applied the fix below.
Thanks for reporting this, Magnus!
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.93
diff -u -r1.93 changes.html
--- changes.html 5 Apr 2015 05:13:11 -0000 1.93
+++ changes.html 6 Apr 2015 12:55:58 -0000
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@
# endif
#endif
</pre></blockquote>
- The header search paths for <code>__has_include_next</code>
+ The header search paths for <code>__has_include</code>
and <code>__has_include_next</code> are equivalent to those
of the standard directive <code>#include</code>
and the extension <code>#include_next</code> respectively.
