delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:42:45 +0300 |
From: | "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
Sender: | halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il |
To: | sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu |
Message-Id: | <2950-Sun09Jun2002194245+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> |
X-Mailer: | emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 |
CC: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Kbwms AT aol DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <10206091606.AA21148@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu) |
Subject: | Re: ISO C99 double math functions |
References: | <10206091606 DOT AA21148 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu > Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:06:01 -0500 (CDT) > > Unless there are legal reasons to do so I don't think there are legal reasons, but DJ should give the definitive say-so. > Maybe we should move all of libm into libc, make libm an empty shell, > and replace the old libc functions with the libm ones. The ``old'' libc functions are actually newer than libm: they were rewritten in preparation for v2.03 to be fast but ANSI-compliant, and to utilize the x87 coprocessor to the greatest possible degree. > If we removed all of our definitions which are redundant with fdlibm, > and just build fdlibm modules as part of the libc, what are the drawbacks? The main drawback is that we lose the fast libc routines added for v2.03. I don't want to lose them.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |