This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Move new totalorder from libm to libc
* Andreas Schwab:
> On Dez 16 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Andreas Schwab:
>>
>>> On Dez 16 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Gabriel F. T. Gomes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Should we define the new totalorder in libc, so that it is harder to
>>>>>>get the wrong version at run time due to underlinking?
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't understand how underlinking could cause a wrong version to be
>>>>> selected. Isn't totalorder only provided by libm? Where would a user
>>>>> program get the old version from? I can only imagine it getting undefined
>>>>> references during link time.
>>>>
>>>> If you build a shared object with -shared, you won't get an undefined
>>>> symbol error (with typical toolchains):
>>>
>>> What makes totalorder special in this regard?
>>
>> It has multiple versions on all architectures now.
>
> exp; exp2; log; log2; pow have the same problem.
Not quite, they are equivalent for most applications. With
totalorder, the function prototype changed in a completely
incompatible way.