X-Sybari-Trust:	7c94c5b1 9ffcebbb a5ee123c 00000138
From:	Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200302261548.QAA11533@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: HUGE_VAL == INFINITY
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:48:38 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To:	<2110-Tue25Feb2003211221+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Feb 25, 2003 09:12:22 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

Eli said:
> > From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:05:10 +0100 (CET)
> > 
> > 1. What's that (the changing of HUGE_VAL) good for?
> 
> It's not good, we should have only one definition.  Prevously, only
> libm/math.h had it defined, but now we added it to stdlib.h as well.
> 
> > 3. Is it so that HUGE_VAL == INFINITY (which libm/math.h seems to
> > imply)?
> 
> AFAICS, the two definitions are identical (the __infinity thing is
> misleading), but we should have only one, IMHO.

Is libc.a guaranteed to be supplied after libm.a if -lm is given on
the command line? If so I propose to remove __infinity from libm.a and
changing the header file to use libc.a's __dj_huge_val.

Will that work or is there some dark magic about the libm __infinity?


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -