Subject: Re: libm and libc
To: Klaus Klein <>
From: Aymeric Vincent <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 05/26/2001 18:45:30
Klaus Klein <> writes:

> Given that libm actually depends on some of the more critical
> internals of libc (i.e. __errno; __sF could be worked around) which
> differ in their glibc implementations, it's not quite clear to me what
> you would gain by including only __infinity and isinf()/isnan().

Yes, after a couple of tries and some thought, I also came to the
conclusion that having a Linux binary swallow our libm was braindead.

(Plus the `standards' issues that you mentioned)