Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:05:59 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: mkdoc patch, take 2
In-Reply-To: <396A39C1.708E619@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000711100538.19180B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:

> > > @portability ansi-c89, !ansi-c99
> > 
> > How much stuff would qualify for this particular example?
> 
> Well, maybe not !ansi-c99, perhaps the floating-point is ~ansi-c99. I
> admit I had trouble following the FP discussion a while back, but it
> seemed that the new behaviour was slightly incompatible. I may be
> completely wrong here. ;)

I think you are mixing two different things.  The ANSI/non-ANSI
indication in the docs means that the relevant feature is specified in
the ANSI Standard.  Whether our implementation complies to the letter
of that specification is irrelevant here.  (In general, where there's
no strict compliance, we have a bug on our hands ;-)