On 2012-11-10 22:39, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:33:40AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: ... >> - Only define isnan, isnanf, __isnan and __isnanf in libc.so, not in >> libc.a and libc_p.a. > > OK, but please add a comment about this. Where? In libc or libm? >> - Define isnan in libm.a and libm_p.a, not in libm.so. I don't think >> there is a need to define __isnan in the .a files, so I left that out. > > Removing symbols from a .so causes subtle ABI breakage and is not needed > for fixing static linking. I didn't remove symbols from any .so. There was no isnan in libm.so before my commit. I only added it to the static libraries. > More concretely, dlsym of isnan on libm.so will stop working and a > different version of isnan will be chosen if the search list is libm.so, > libother.so, libc.so and libother.so contains another isnan. As I said, there was no isnan in libm.so, so this does not matter.Received on Sat Nov 10 2012 - 20:59:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC