Date:	Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:42:45 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
Message-Id:	<2950-Sun09Jun2002194245+0300-eliz@is.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, Kbwms AT aol DOT com
In-reply-to:	<10206091606.AA21148@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject:	Re: ISO C99 double math functions
References:	<10206091606 DOT AA21148 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
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

> From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
> Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:06:01 -0500 (CDT)
> 
> Unless there are legal reasons to do so

I don't think there are legal reasons, but DJ should give the
definitive say-so.

> Maybe we should move all of libm into libc, make libm an empty shell, 
> and replace the old libc functions with the libm ones.

The ``old'' libc functions are actually newer than libm: they were
rewritten in preparation for v2.03 to be fast but ANSI-compliant, and
to utilize the x87 coprocessor to the greatest possible degree.

> If we removed all of our definitions which are redundant with fdlibm,
> and just build fdlibm modules as part of the libc, what are the drawbacks?

The main drawback is that we lose the fast libc routines added for
v2.03.  I don't want to lose them.

- Raw text -