Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:22:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: kris@obsecurity.org Subject: Re: __fpclassifyd problem Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10310200918170.20170-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20031020.032855.02430873.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <3F92FC99.8010802@freebsd.org> > Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> writes: > : We need to resolve this before 5.2 in some fashion. It looks like the > : easiest thing to do is bump libm. Is this advisable? > > The problem with bumping libm is that we also need, strictly speaking, > to bump all libarires that depend on libm, and that can be very ugly. > This moves the bump the major version from the trivial fix class to > something that we have to think real hard about. In general one > cannot bump the major version of 'base' libaries like this w/o careful > thought and planning. While we've done that in the past with libc, I > think we were wrong to do so in some classes of symbol tampering. > > Warner _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, > send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > If it's just __fpclassifyd(), can you just add a compatability hack to libm so it works with both libc 4.0 and 5.x? You can make __fpclassifyd a weak definition to the hack in libm. I suppose you could also add __fpclassfyd() to libc 4.0. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10310200918170.20170-100000>