From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94438 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2015 18:31:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 94384 invoked by uid 89); 27 Mar 2015 18:31:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail.lysator.liu.se Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (HELO mail.lysator.liu.se) (130.236.254.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:31:37 +0000 Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44204002C for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:31:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from bacon.lysator.liu.se (vindbrygga.lysator.liu.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:17:f0a0::de]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65DA4002A for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:31:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from bacon.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bacon.lysator.liu.se (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2RIVWjo025171 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:31:32 +0100 (MET) Received: (from magfr@localhost) by bacon.lysator.liu.se (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5/Submit) id t2RIVWN4025170 for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:31:32 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:31:00 -0000 From: Magnus Fromreide To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Typo: gcc-5/changes.html Message-ID: <20150327183132.GA24935@bacon.lysator.liu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01464.txt.bz2 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. /MF