Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:02:30 +0200 (EET)
From: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender: peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: strto{d,f,ld}, inf and nan patch
In-Reply-To: <7263-Wed19Mar2003175704+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.51.0303201255060.3139@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References: <200303182003 DOT h2IK3aw16734 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
 <3E786DE4 DOT CEDBE28C AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <7263-Wed19Mar2003175704+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 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.

I agree that libc.a should have all C99 math functions, but I think it
might make sense to have different version of these functions in libm.a;
that's the case for the functions that are currently in both libc.a and
libm.a (in fact, that's the reason we still have libm.a IIRC).

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/