On 2012-11-10 22:39, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:33:40AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
- Only define isnan, isnanf, __isnan and __isnanf in libc.so, not in libc.a and libc_p.a.OK, but please add a comment about this.
Where? In libc or libm?
- Define isnan in libm.a and libm_p.a, not in libm.so. I don't think there is a need to define __isnan in the .a files, so I left that out.Removing symbols from a .so causes subtle ABI breakage and is not needed for fixing static linking.
I didn't remove symbols from any .so. There was no isnan in libm.so before my commit. I only added it to the static libraries.
More concretely, dlsym of isnan on libm.so will stop working and a different version of isnan will be chosen if the search list is libm.so, libother.so, libc.so and libother.so contains another isnan.
As I said, there was no isnan in libm.so, so this does not matter. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
