From: nickc Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:00:49 +0000 (+0000) Subject: oops - omitted from previous checkin X-Git-Url: http://git.sourceforge.jp/view?p=pf3gnuchains%2Fgcc-fork.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=012491e188a94dafda461dee168fbca65449b6aa oops - omitted from previous checkin git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@91771 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 --- diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtins-config.h b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtins-config.h index d56cc1fb3a6..05afc5ee567 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtins-config.h +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtins-config.h @@ -23,13 +23,14 @@ /* Newlib has the "f" variants of the math functions, but not the "l" variants. TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS is only defined if all C99 functions are present. Therefore, on systems using newlib, tests - of builtins will fail for both the "f" and the "l" variants, and we - should therefore not define HAVE_C99_RUNTIME. Including - gives us a way of seeing if _NEWLIB_VERSION is defined. Include - would work too, but the GLIBC math inlines cause us to - generate inferior code, which causes the test to fail, so it is - not safe to include . */ -#include + of builtins will fail the "l" variants, and we should therefore not + define HAVE_C99_RUNTIME. Including gives us a way of + seeing if _NEWLIB_VERSION is defined. Including would work + too, but the GLIBC math inlines cause us to generate inferior code, + which causes the test to fail, so it is not safe. Including + also fails because the include search paths are ordered such that GCC's + version will be found before the newlib version. */ +#include #ifdef _NEWLIB_VERSION #else #define HAVE_C99_RUNTIME