On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : We need to resolve this before 5.2 in some fashion. It looks like the > : easiest thing to do is bump libm. Is this advisable? > > The problem with bumping libm is that we also need, strictly speaking, > to bump all libarires that depend on libm, and that can be very ugly. > This moves the bump the major version from the trivial fix class to > something that we have to think real hard about. In general one > cannot bump the major version of 'base' libaries like this w/o careful > thought and planning. While we've done that in the past with libc, I > think we were wrong to do so in some classes of symbol tampering. > > Warner _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, > send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >
If it's just __fpclassifyd(), can you just add a compatability hack to libm so it works with both libc 4.0 and 5.x? You can make __fpclassifyd a weak definition to the hack in libm. I suppose you could also add __fpclassfyd() to libc 4.0. -- Dan Eischen _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
