X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:32:25 -0400
Message-Id: <201107011832.p61IWPHI022600@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <BANLkTimenPPmJOxj6GHMQ38nvzRcfPGQ+A@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from Ozkan Sezer on Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:22:46 +0300)
Subject: Re: gcc-4.4: conflicting types for built-in function 'cabs' and 'cabsf'
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>
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


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...