Message-ID:	<002b01c20fa1$0017b460$0102a8c0@acceleron>
From:	"Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	<Kbwms AT aol DOT com>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020609074954 DOT 12685A-100000 AT is>
Subject:	Re: ISO C99 double math functions
Date:	Sun, 9 Jun 2002 20:32:16 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

..SNIP..
> We have those functions in libm.a.  The question is, should we leave
> them in libm.a, move them to libc.a, or write replacement functions of
> our own and put those into libc.a?
>
> Leaving them in libm.a means users will have to say "-lm" for some math
> functions but not for others; that can lead to confusion.  Moving them
> into libc.a means we take apart fdlibm-originated code, which will make
> it harder to upgrade to newer versions of fdlibm should we want to.
> Coming up with our own implementations means more work.
>
> Opinions?

Just a thought, may or may not help. Just my 2 cents worth of thought:-
    Linux, Cygwin, MinGW and other x86 compilers also should have similar
problems and may have resolved the problems. Is it worth looking at how they
solved the problem and if feasible then use the same method.

I have not used any of these other compilers enough to know if they have had
similar problems and if they resolved them.

Andrew

- Raw text -