X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f From: Kbwms AT aol DOT com Message-ID: <12e.322be914.2ca8a773@aol.com> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:06:59 EDT Subject: Re: Integrating K. B. Williams's maths functions To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12e.322be914.2ca8a773_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6015 Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com --part1_12e.322be914.2ca8a773_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rich Dawe and Eli Zaretskii: In a message dated 9/28/2003 4:29:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il writes: > >Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:01:59 +0100 > >From: Richard Dawe > > > >> >There are functions in libm.a, namely nan() and nanf(), that conflict >> with >> >those in C99 because the libm.a functions do not take an argument. What >> are >> >our plans for developing C99 versions of these functions? >> > > >My plan is that we will use those rather than those in libm.a. > > I think when these functions are part of libc.a, we should remove the > ones in libm.a. > The point is that neither library has a nan() function that meets C99 specifications -- namely that the C99 functions take a calling-sequence parameter whereas the current ones to not. What should we do about that? KB Williams --part1_12e.322be914.2ca8a773_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rich Dawe and Eli Zaretskii:

In a message dated 9/28/2003 4:29:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, eliz AT elta DOT co.= il writes:

>Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:01:59 +0100
>From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
>
>There are functions in libm.a, namely nan() and nanf(),= that conflict with
>those in C99 because the libm.a functions do not take an argument. = What are
>our plans for developing C99 versions of these functions?


>My plan is that we will use those rather than those in libm.a.

I think when these functions are part of libc.a, we should remove the
ones in libm.a.


The point is that neither library has a nan() function that meets C99 specif= ications -- namely that the C99 functions take a calling-sequence parameter=20= whereas the current ones to not.  What should we do about that?


KB Williams
 --part1_12e.322be914.2ca8a773_boundary--