| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f |
| X-Recipient: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; |
| d=gmail.com; s=gamma; | |
| h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to | |
| :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; | |
| bh=xadSF2NDbSSz63IQ5DqeOPr+uOYWy0viys0oztBA4mw=; | |
| b=wwotpjY+xioIbw3OOBJ3eZoH4CemBmadZvhwFDu8ICeCCBjCpEonOD40vgjoSAhMBA | |
| LILvI+4YfmNZLHdm93iUhIoXbDRAwmHpEnTBLx43qj/LME0bJNnP2/9IuYUjQk3Ll5hY | |
| Hgk480Dkw1U8yzOhb1obUo+rpkqReIKDEQ0zo= | |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| In-Reply-To: | <201107011548.p61FmWQW014052@envy.delorie.com> |
| References: | <BANLkTikW3CVu0QEHyFwgfpvzqNoMR6Tfrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> |
| <83tyb6qce3 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> | |
| <BANLkTi=q_JbhptgWTi8ZN7mtq9NO9zPX0g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
| <201107011526 DOT p61FQs24012782 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> | |
| <BANLkTi=BU4UzOR+RtD9hJRCtKq6eR3AYog AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
| <201107011539 DOT p61FdYjI013658 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> | |
| <BANLkTi=HfCnAD4WUndyU_bdnP6wXuOPo0A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
| <201107011548 DOT p61FmWQW014052 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> | |
| Date: | Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:53:33 +0300 |
| Message-ID: | <BANLkTinA0i1sOT4tM4igv6Y1aR+3vdnNJg@mail.gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: gcc-4.4: conflicting types for built-in function 'cabs' and 'cabsf' |
| From: | Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> |
| To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p61Frb7J020276 |
| Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > >> Then I suggest removing those two from build, like : > > Do we need those prototypes for gcc's built-in versions? Or should we > add implementations of those, with updated headers? > There are no prototypes of them anywhere but in the relevant source *.c files. If there is a need for providing these two functions, it must be done so by adding updated prototypes (possibly via a proper complex.h) with the *.c sources adjusted accordingly. However that would require adding the rest of the complex math to the library, does it not? -- O.S.
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |