From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi  Sat Jun 19 09:00:37 2010
To: mint <mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
Subject: [MiNT] Multiple definition of Symbol x (from mathlib) when compiling for 68020-60
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:58:51 +0200
From: m0n0 <ole@monochrom.net>
Reply-To: ole@monochrom.net
Message-ID: <526f7cc4fba56ccfb3cbdec1e1a016cd-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUBFBDBTXF5bVkYJXV5oA1dWMl5dRkMLWlhaQ1k=-webmailer2@server01.webmailer.hosteurope.de>
X-Sender: ole@monochrom.net
User-Agent: Host Europe Webmailer/2.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-HE-Access: Yes
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ole@monochrom.net;1276952331;1d088b84;
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
X-original-sender: ole@monochrom.net
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-List-ID: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>


Hello, 

when compiling netsurf with the -m68020-60 flag enabled, it gives me lot's
of "Multiple definition of _sin, _cos, etc..." 
I expect this is happening because some of the libs that get linked into
netsurf are just available as 68000 version.  So one of these 68000 libs
reffer to another _sin, but it has the same name... Or could it be an other
issue?  

Is there an good way to make it visible/track down which lib causes the
error/conflict?

If someone tells me -Zmuldef or something is a good choice, I would also
try that, but I think it's better to track back the reason for the multiple
definitions. 

Without the -m68020-60 flag everything works fine. 

Reading the other 68020-60 topic makes me unsure if it is even worth
trying to compile for 68020-60 - but after reading about the performance
increase that openssl get's by using 68020 assembly instructions, I really
wanted to get it working. At least I think it's the way to go, producing an
program that should be run on 68030 or higher, should also get these
compiler flags. Even if it just 1% Speed increase - 1% for each and every
line of codes makes a difference (just my point of view :) ).

Greets, 
Ole