From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12572 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2009 19:33:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 12179 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2009 19:32:33 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090422193233.12178.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/39491] [4.4/4.5 regression] symbol __signbitl@GLIBCXX_3.4 in libstdc++ not exported anymore In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg02028.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #17 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-04-22 19:32 ------- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 regression] symbol __signbitl@GLIBCXX_3.4 in libstdc++ not exported anymore > * Original submitter is incorrect, there has never been a > __signbitl@GLIBCXX_3.4 symbol, and there should not be one now? The symbol is present in libstdc++.so.6.0.9 and libstdc++.so.6.0.10, but not in libstdc++.so.6.0.8 or libstdc++.so.6.0.11. > * I have changed the glibc hppa-linux-gnu port to define __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH, > and therefore the signbit macro, even in the abscense of optimization, will > always return a valid signbit function based on the type size. I'm not convinced this is a good idea at this point. As far as I know, it is ok to have the same size for double and long double. However, they are distinct types. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39491