Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/06/10/16:23:56
Andris Pavenis wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > The main drawback is that we lose the fast libc routines added for
> > v2.03. I don't want to lose them.
Nor do I.
> Or other way: it could be possible to have 2 versions of libm -
> - one fast one using coprocessor
> - slower one based on fdlibm
My suggestion would be to put the new functions in libc in order to avoid FAQs,
but start by simply copying the appropriate routines from libm that are not
currently present in libc. That way, users wouldn't have to say -lm to get the
new functions, the math functions I coded a few years ago would still be linked in
by default (there is a big speed penalty in some of the libm routines), and we'd
have the new routines with minimal development effort.
As K.B. Williams (or others) write the new routines, they could be incorporated
into libc, but there would no longer be the pressure to get them all written at
once; the worst ones could be re-written first, and the better ones later (if
ever).
Are there any IP/copyright issues to this approach?
-Eric
- Raw text -