Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:21:21 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man3 Makefile src/lib/libc/alpha/gen Makefile.inc fpsetsticky.c src/lib/libc/amd64/gen Makefile.inc fpsetsticky.c src/lib/libc/powerpc/gen Makefile.inc fpsetsticky.c src/lib/libc/softfloat Makefile.inc src/lib/libc/sparc64/gen ... Message-ID: <20050316042121.GA81364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050316134418.G69441@delplex.bde.org> References: <200503151553.j2FFrdeF075515@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050315181126.GA77247@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20050315191232.GA40227@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050315203729.GB95619@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20050316134418.G69441@delplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:46:52PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, David Schultz wrote: > > >On Tue, Mar 15, 2005, David O'Brien wrote: > >>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:11:27AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > >>>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:53:39PM +0000, David Schultz wrote: > >>>> Log: > >>>> Remove fpsetsticky(). > >>> > >>>Library version bump? It took several years to live through > >>>the libm.so.2 fiasco, and I would hate to relive it. I haven't > >>>verified it yet, but you may have just broken NAGWare's Fortran > >>>95 compiler without the version bump. > >> > >>We've already bumped libm.so for 6-CURRENT [to .3 from .2]. > >>This change certainly cannot be MFC'ed though. > >> > >>How would bumping libm.so not break NAGWare Fortran? > > > >It turns out that fpsetsticky() was misplaced in libc, and libc > >has already been bumped for 6.X. But as you point out, the bump > >probably wouldn't fix NAGWare Fortran if this change broke it. > >However, my change doesn't seem to have broken the demo version > >available on the NAG website. But if I did break anything, please > >let me know. > > It isn't even in libc for i386's (since it is inline and not backed > by a function). So removing it can't affect binary compatibility on > i386's. > Odd, I haven't seen David's or David's replies. If you re-read what I wrote, you see "I haven't verified it yet, but you may have just broken NAGWare ...". Note the speculation in the quoted passage. In NAGWare's f95.h, there is a function with a name similar to _NAG_IEEE_fpsetsticky(), which suggests that NAG uses fpsetsticky(). I'll also admit I completely miss that das changed libc not libm. Das is the only person who regularly commits to libm source, so I naturally assumed that fpsetsticky() was in libm. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050316042121.GA81364>