On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, David Schultz wrote:
Oops, to complicate matters further, I just noticed that we
already have isnanf and __isnanf symbols in libc, so maybe the new
symbol isn't needed. (isnan() and isnanf() are in libc because
that's where they were historically.) The second version in
libm looks like a mistake (wrong scope of the #if 0 in s_isnan.c.)
Perhaps we could just remove the duplicate symbols from libm.
Better would be to remove the symbols from libc and have them in
libm where they belong, but I'm not sure if that would break anything.
Better move Standard C symbols from libm to libc where they belong
:-). Even Unix programmers should not be too surprised now if the
Standard part of the libm namespace becomes more reserved. (It is
already partly reserved -- gcc warns about use of cos() without
including <math.h>, and once you have included <math.h> the whole
compile-time libm namespace is reserved.)
BTW, c89 is missing the -lm needed to make it a C compiler, and its
man page doesn't say anything about this. Similarly for gcc (?, man
page too large to check).
Bruce
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
