This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: alpha vs complex functions

From: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:58:03 -0800
Subject: Re: alpha vs complex functions
References: <20040108235617.GA2916@twiddle.net> <200401130147.i0D1ltbb032535@magilla.sf.frob.com>

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:47:55PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> So, that says that the references produced by 3.4-compiled code should have
> names like `cabsf' (that bind to a new symbol version), while referenced
> produced by 3.3-compiled code should refer specifically to the
> compatibility symbols.

Ok.  I'll experiment with the versioning and see if I can work things
around this direction.  I expect it's doable, just confusing.  ;-)

r~

References:
- alpha vs complex functions
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: alpha vs complex functions
  - From: Roland McGrath

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]