Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:59:19 -0400
Message-Id: <200206092159.g59LxJd09846@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020609074954.12685A-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Sun, 9 Jun 2002 07:56:35 +0300 (IDT))
Subject: Re: ISO C99 double math functions
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020609074954 DOT 12685A-100000 AT is>
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


> K.B. Williams kindly agreed to work on adding the missing C99 math 
> functions to the DJGPP library.  However, apart of the long double 
> functions, C99 also codifies several functions which return a double 
> result, and which were not in the Standard C library before C99.
> 
> 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?

Does the standard say they *must be in libc.a?  Many math functions in
libc.a are *not* normally there, and *usually* require -lm, but we put
them in libc.a to avoid FAQs.