Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:07:08 +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: <2561-Thu28Aug2003000708+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200308271827.h7RIR9I0004930@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se)
Subject: Re: <math.h> and <libm/math.h>
References:  <200308271827 DOT h7RIR9I0004930 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth 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: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:27:09 +0200 (CEST)
> > 
> > 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.

Those undefined things should be added to <math.h>.

> > Any takers?
> 
> Looks like much work.

Yes.