Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:12:22 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2110-Tue25Feb2003211221+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200302241805.h1OI5AM06732@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se)
Subject: Re: HUGE_VAL == INFINITY
References:  <200302241805 DOT h1OI5AM06732 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth 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
Precedence: bulk

> 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.