Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 13:47:33 +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: <1659-Sat01Mar2003134733+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200302261548.QAA11533@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> (message from Martin
	Stromberg on Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:48:38 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: HUGE_VAL == INFINITY
References:  <200302261548 DOT QAA11533 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft 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: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:48:38 +0100 (MET)
> > 
> > > 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?

I think we can expect that; otherwise, many programs will not build
at all.

> If so I propose to remove __infinity from libm.a and
> changing the header file to use libc.a's __dj_huge_val.

Sounds okay to me.

> Will that work or is there some dark magic about the libm __infinity?

I don't think there's some magic there, but it's a long time since I
looked closely at libm sources.

We could try that for a while and see if something breaks.