From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200308271827.h7RIR9I0004930@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: <math.h> and <libm/math.h>
In-Reply-To: <7458-Wed27Aug2003200336+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> "from Eli Zaretskii
 at Aug 27, 2003 08:03:36 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:27:09 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > What should be done? Should <libm/math.h> be updated according to
> > <math.h>?
> 
> I think we should simply modify include/libm.h so that it works both
> for libc.a nd for libm.a (when compiling the libraries _and_ when
> compiling prfograms that use the libraries).  Then we could have
> <libm/math.h> include <math.h> (for back-compatibility) and do nothing
> else.

Sounds great.

FWIW, I have tried:

1. using <math.h> instead of <libm/math.h> and got many undefined
things.

2. making libm source files use the C99 nan and inifinity stuff
(i. e. removing the definitions of them from libm's makefile) and got
a non-compiling complete mess.

> Any takers?

Looks like much work.


Right,

						MartinS