If people think an upstream is useful, I suggest deleting our libm
completely and replacing it with musl's.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:35:00PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> > (1) libm is horribly non-KNF; my understanding is that at one time it
> > had an upstream of sorts which is why it's the way it is, but it
> > doesn't any more so there's no longer any reason to humour this. Is
> > that correct?
On 2016/08/26 13:13, David Holland wrote:
(1) libm is horribly non-KNF; my understanding is that at one time it
had an upstream of sorts which is why it's the way it is, but it
doesn't any more so there's no longer any reason to humour this. Is
that correct?
I think so too. But there still rema
