From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: walter harms Subject: Re: RFC: Bug 60749 - Do not need to link against -lm for fabs*() Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:57:12 +0200 Message-ID: <52371C48.7040404@bfs.de> References: <5233415A.90506@bfs.de> <5234511C.7030500@bfs.de> Reply-To: wharms-fPG8STNUNVg@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5234511C.7030500-fPG8STNUNVg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-man List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Am 14.09.2013 14:05, schrieb walter harms: > > > Am 13.09.2013 20:20, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages): >> Walter, >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:46 PM, walter harms wrote: >>> hi list, >>> i was investigating this and the good news it that you still need a libm. >>> On the other side the reporter is right he does not need to specify that. >>> Obviously this depends on the linker script used. >>> >>> The math man pages say: "Link with -lm". >>> Perhaps it is better to say 'You may need to Link with -lm". >>> >>> any comments on that ? >> >> >> Thanks for looking at this bug. Could you elaborate a little more on >> what it/sin't in the linker script that makes the difference? >> > > I have no clue what linker magic is needed. > I know what it going on. the is no linker magic required. The point is gcc build-ins. Some functions are replaced with build-ins. That happens e.g. with fabs() what the original poster noted. Disabling the build-ins with gcc -fno-builtin shows that the -lm is still a requirement. next problem, who will do the bugzilla-entry ? re, wh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html