> > kim@pvv.ntnu.no said:
> You put math functions in libc?

I didn't put them anywhere.

Normally a gcc implementation would put them in libgcc.a, since they are 
support libraries for a compiler implementation.  The NetBSD implementors 
chose to place most of the functions from that library in libc.so 
(presumably to simplify shared library handling for the common case).  I 
had nothing to do with that decision; I'm not entirely happy with it, but 
I have to live with it.

> That is the wrong place.
> Math functions should be in the math libraries.

These functions are low-level compiler-generated routines which happen to 
be needed to support the base floating point implementation.  The have a 
parallel to the division and modulo support functions that are required 
for many RISC processors (including the ARM).  They do not belong in a 
user-linked library (such as libm), which is only linked in at the option 
of the user.

> On some platforms there are several math libraries, with different
> properties. 

Not usually for the low-level functionality we are talking about here.

> 
> Putting math in libc makes things messy. 
> Why not put it where it belongs?

See above.  Changing it is, unfortunately, far from trivial.

> Also as mentioned earlier, I worked 3 months of evenings on this project
> some years ago, and was stopped by uncompilable gcc. I have told you
> about this project several times before in these years.
> 

But this is clearly not true.  Numerous people successfully compile the 
standard gcc and egcs distributions in addition to the in-tree NetBSD 
copy.  Just saying it is not compilable doesn't help us to help you (we 
aren't psychic).