From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25909 invoked by alias); 3 May 2004 16:11:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25899 invoked by alias); 3 May 2004 16:11:33 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 16:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040503161133.25898.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040503154240.15266.ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> References: <20040503154240.15266.ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libfortran/15266] [tree-ssa] libgfortran doesn't compile on IRIX 5.3 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2004-05-03 16:11 ------- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] libgfortran doesn't compile on IRIX 5.3 pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org writes: > Man I hate non-C99 complaint C libraries. Note the function is there for C99 stubs and the front-end > emits to those C99 functions. But if libgfortran relies on a C99 libm, then why does it reimplement all those complex functions at all? They should already be present. And if it needs them to be present under any circumstances, it better use some internal names to avoid clashes like the one described here. > Maybe there should be a better way in libgfortran to check for these functions. As I said: if they are present already (and with the correct signature!), just use them instead of reimplementing them. > Someone should complain to these companies for not updating their OS's to C99 as it has been out for > almost 5 years now. Which doesn't hold for old releases like IRIX 5 or Tru64 UNIX V4.0. But even current O/S and compiler releases just now start supporting C99. GCC has tried to accomodate non-bleeding-edge O/Ses for a long time, and I don't see a good reason to stop this now. Rainer -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15266