Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/03/02/10:32:01
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:24:59PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 02 March 2006 15:14, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:52PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 02 March 2006 14:34, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> Well, I did this:
>>>> $ nm libcygwin.a | grep isnan
>>>> 00000000 T ___isnand
>>>> 00000000 I __imp____isnand
>>>> 00000000 T ___isnanf
>>>> 00000000 I __imp____isnanf
>>>> 00000000 I __imp___isnan
>>>> 00000000 T __isnan
>>>> 00000000 I __imp___isnanf
>>>> 00000000 T __isnanf
>>>> 00000000 I __imp__isnan
>>>> 00000000 T _isnan
>>>> 00000000 I __imp__isnanf
>>>> 00000000 T _isnanf
>>>> $ nm libm.a | grep isnan
>>>> 00000000 T ___isnand
>>>> 00000000 I __imp____isnand
>>>> 00000000 T ___isnanf
>>>> 00000000 I __imp____isnanf
>>>> 00000000 I __imp__isnan
>>>> 00000000 T _isnan
>>>> 00000000 I __imp__isnanf
>>>> 00000000 T _isnanf
>>>>
>>>> I don't see what would be wrong here.
>>>
>>> It's not in libc.a, does that make a difference?
>>
>> It's in libm.a.
>
>That's orthogonal to the question I asked!
Huh? I was providing some information which was missing from any other
message I saw in this thread.
Since all math functions are supposed to be in libm.a, then it really
shouldn't be in libc.a and anything which relied on it being in libc.a
would be in error.
>BTW, I keep getting this "Error: Version info is older than DLL API!"
>message during my builds that I've never seen before. After some
>googling, it turns out to be intended to warn that someone has added
>new exported APIs but not updated the API_MINOR number. However I see
>the API_MINOR has been bumped to 155, so I don't know why I'm seeing
>it. Is anyone else getting this? Could it be significant?
No.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -