delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:59:19 -0400 |
Message-Id: | <200206092159.g59LxJd09846@envy.delorie.com> |
X-Authentication-Warning: | envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT delorie DOT com using -f |
From: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020609074954.12685A-100000@is> (message from Eli |
Zaretskii on Sun, 9 Jun 2002 07:56:35 +0300 (IDT)) | |
Subject: | Re: ISO C99 double math functions |
References: | <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020609074954 DOT 12685A-100000 AT is> |
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 |
> K.B. Williams kindly agreed to work on adding the missing C99 math > functions to the DJGPP library. However, apart of the long double > functions, C99 also codifies several functions which return a double > result, and which were not in the Standard C library before C99. > > 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? Does the standard say they *must be in libc.a? Many math functions in libc.a are *not* normally there, and *usually* require -lm, but we put them in libc.a to avoid FAQs.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |