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=wI+gTI8B8D5D4WIzdsC4ep4ayJfjMU/3FoS4Ove8+Gg=;
	b=FCXd6dXgexlsvFUOmkmWeFGhhzrBkpWdvo/UyG+fg3IjuwtUPvxqxjRmfs0U7E3I3q
	GsAp25xsTRSSohNGwb7UE7gTrYaT/BV4duzHhCZDqvJh7zhzJrsFxuszO0DusRQOBTI5
	2tfCpirIt3o0LdYLLOWTmsoXoU5tAwOzfWbuM=
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<BANLkTi=BeUYBJs7CaZqNZ58=Cv7nKnvK2g@mail.gmail.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>
	<BANLkTi=rTRfAoChLEvb+2QCFQNYkcFKTQg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011753 DOT p61Hr3XO020234 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTinrOAihDo1B_uTbWccdOKfFXs7ujw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011814 DOT p61IERDY021019 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTimenPPmJOxj6GHMQ38nvzRcfPGQ+A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011832 DOT p61IWPHI022600 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTi=BeUYBJs7CaZqNZ58=Cv7nKnvK2g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:03:18 -0500
Message-ID:	<BANLkTim67BLWYmxnx3kFLa4KJn=gtj+ugQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: gcc-4.4: conflicting types for built-in function 'cabs' and 'cabsf'
From:	Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Gautier de Montmollin <esgm AT bluewin DOT ch>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p61K3OwS004959
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

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:32 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm... OK, I suppose.
>>
>> Can I assume you built and tested libm with your fix?  Does it return
>> the right values?
>>
>> We don't want to have to fix it twice...
>>
>
> Only build-tested (gcc 3.3.6 and 4.4.7), which was my only intention,
> but not run-tested.  I'd like to leave run-testing to someone who is
> more accustomed to those functions than me.

I don't know any "complex" number stuff, but do we need tests just in
general (C99, Fortran) or for all related languages with such support
(ISO Modula-2, Extended Pascal, Ada95)?

- Raw text -