Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3E5C15BC.185E11F2@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:17:48 +0000
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: HUGE_VAL == INFINITY
References: <200302241805 DOT h1OI5AM06732 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <2110-Tue25Feb2003211221+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > 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.

I think you mean "math.h as well". But math.h has had HUGE_VAL for a while. Do
"cvs annotate" on it and you should see:

1.1          (dj       18-Nov-95): #define HUGE_VAL  __dj_huge_val

NB: HUGE_VALF and HUGE_VALL are new for C99.

> > 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.

I agree.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]