sparc: fix for missing include file

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 12:37 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 01:34 AM, Will Newton wrote:

> > runtime analysis tools (e.g. sanitizers, valgrind) may trip over this
> >
> This is the real question.  In many places, glibc is not safe in the 
> presence of sanitizers that insert undefined behavior whenever the C 
> standard allows them to.  Current practice is for these sanitizers to 
> maintain a list of exceptions, so that they don't cry wolf in situations 
> like these.  Should we continue this practice, or should we strive to 
> make glibc safe even in the presence of a purposely-finicky implementation?

I think we should try to avoid undefined behavior, unless we really need
it.  Making it harder to use those tools won't be helpful in the long
term, in my opinion.  The less "special" glibc code is the better,
probably.