This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: libm.so vs libgcj.so

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 13:09:01 -0700
Subject: Re: libm.so vs libgcj.so
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
References: <200305181542.LAA12391@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <200305181949.PAA14100@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jack Howarth wrote:
>    Well I was wondering more so why these symbols were weak in libm.so?
> It would seem that library should have precedence for such math related
> symbols, no?

Weak or not does not matter in the least.

- -- 
- --------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+x+hd2ijCOnn/RHQRAjzQAJ9x1SJg9ascqBo2D6TltiW8x0BJbwCcDVzo
UTU4xSyOvlZfZ1+5PdqC1ic=
=htKx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- libm.so vs libgcj.so
  - From: Jack Howarth
- Re: libm.so vs libgcj.so
  - From: Jack Howarth

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]