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;
	bh=9h8uxQC6wE9qGmsf9aM/vciij2TX90t3mW254uyuwR4=;
	b=vHrTcjE8V1WoJuDh2ddXn/j0jMWM4u4pRCiBbN08P24sD+/HAbNsezzk0b+QNoD7lk
	yg/3eId7X5BhQ3qPkbodbtrBlS8EF2eznD9h40a8VeSCvU55ugHa8hnop6exuLlhq7Zc
	v19clPQ8ClFAIAUup8E/rwdoorp7pD4e4R97w=
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<201107011734.p61HYlRK019374@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>
	<BANLkTinA0i1sOT4tM4igv6Y1aR+3vdnNJg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011557 DOT p61FvXVP014582 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTim-07ErkunBix8U46KYFF497HKAPA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011614 DOT p61GEu8r015173 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<4E0DFC80 DOT 2070607 AT iki DOT fi>
	<BANLkTinPMEVyiceCG5QEjRDsTwqWqfUuGg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<BANLkTi=+dUg8py11+BweccQtUdum1pxApA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011734 DOT p61HYlRK019374 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2011 20:36:01 +0300
Message-ID:	<BANLkTi=rTRfAoChLEvb+2QCFQNYkcFKTQg@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
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 8:34 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> Why not just re-do the functions using real complex types?
>

Old gcc?

- Raw text -