Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:57:05 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id: <7263-Wed19Mar2003175704+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3E786DE4.CEDBE28C@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:17:24 +0000)
Subject: Re: strto{d,f,ld}, inf and nan patch
References: <200303182003 DOT h2IK3aw16734 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3E786DE4 DOT CEDBE28C AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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

> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:17:24 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> Yes, libm needs upgrading.

Perhaps someone could download the latest version of fdlibm and see
if it is already up-to-date with C99.

> I actually put K. B. Williams's stuff in libc in
> one of my CVS trees, but I'm starting to think it should go in libm. Our libm
> and K. B. Williams's stuff seem to be derived from the same source: fdlibml.

I'd rather we had the C99 math functions in libc.a.  What libm.a has
is mostly for historical reasons, and we developed our versions of
most of that stuff for libc.a (Eric's work) to free users from the
need to say -lm.  It doesn't make much sense to put that limitation
now when users want the new C99 math stuff: there's no history
involved, so we can do whatever we see fit.

> > > Having said that, our implementations of nan* are not in the ANSI section.
> > 
> > Isn't that because they weren't in C89? (I haven't actually checked.)
> 
> I don't have C89, but the text in new POSIX suggests that they weren't in C89.

That's true, those functions were not in C89.