X-Sybari-Trust: 7c94c5b1 9ffcebbb a5ee123c 00000138 From: Martin Stromberg Message-Id: <200302261548.QAA11533@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> Subject: Re: HUGE_VAL == INFINITY To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:48:38 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: <2110-Tue25Feb2003211221+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Feb 25, 2003 09:12:22 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] 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 Eli said: > > From: > > 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. Is libc.a guaranteed to be supplied after libm.a if -lm is given on the command line? If so I propose to remove __infinity from libm.a and changing the header file to use libc.a's __dj_huge_val. Will that work or is there some dark magic about the libm __infinity? Right, MartinS