From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10206091606.AA21148@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: ISO C99 double math functions
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:06:01 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: Kbwms AT aol DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020609074954.12685A-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 09, 2002 07:56:35 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> 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?

Unless there are legal reasons to do so, writing replacement functions
sounds like a complete waste of effort (both doing it and maintaining it).

Maybe we should move all of libm into libc, make libm an empty shell, 
and replace the old libc functions with the libm ones.

> Leaving them in libm.a means users will have to say "-lm" for some math 
> functions but not for others; that can lead to confusion.  Moving them 
> into libc.a means we take apart fdlibm-originated code, which will make 
> it harder to upgrade to newer versions of fdlibm should we want to.  
> Coming up with our own implementations means more work.

If we removed all of our definitions which are redundant with fdlibm,
and just build fdlibm modules as part of the libc, what are the drawbacks?