Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:28:15 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<1438-Wed15Jan2003192814+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<200301151329.OAA24205@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> (message from Martin
	Stromberg on Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:29:40 +0100 (MET))
Subject:	Re: C99 math functions
References:	<200301151329 DOT OAA24205 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
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: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:29:40 +0100 (MET)
> 
> I don't use much (any?) math in my puny programs. Would it still be
> beneficial to apply that patch and compile it?

Yes.  It will tell us that the additions do compile cleanly.

> I suppose I could run some test suite, but that's already done I
> suppose by X. Would it still be beneficial to run it?

It would be a good idea to find some test suite specifically targeted
to test C99 math functions, and then run it.  I don't think the new
math functions were tested a lot.

- Raw text -