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=q0tF0tA1VzwzlzwBa6hs2wov9lgaeGDcK2BmV6bb1kk=;
        b=VCw6AK4QFNo2W4ByK1cxi+0aJ/eVdAy91R3Fk8OA+xcf/q/19opJpbYFrAUanTPmVv
         GdPWmmFebmWKF2DaiIzQxWBSvRYiwoylKpvAu64Q02Ik/mX4kpQ1K3IQ9SYGTNYUN4oM
         4Z3pZnFVWEzvgQMGk4b8BXW++qWegNqR67yDU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201107011557.p61FvXVP014582@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>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 19:13:53 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTim-07ErkunBix8U46KYFF497HKAPA@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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p61GE1I0021477
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
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:57 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> However that would require adding the rest of the complex math
>> to the library, does it not?
>
> Perhaps.  Which would you rather do?
>

If it were up to me, I'd just remove those already hidden two
and be done with it.  But it's just me who doesn't need any bit
of complex math :)