Update.

2000-10-09  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	* sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/s_nexttoward.c (__nexttoward): If x == y,
	return y not x.
	* manual/arith.texi (nextafter): Document it.
	* sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-96/s_nexttoward.c: Fix a comment.

1 files changed, 29 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/CONFORMANCE b/CONFORMANCE
index bfb8291fa9..c968754745 100644
--- a/CONFORMANCE
+++ b/CONFORMANCE
@@ -62,9 +62,11 @@ of the C standard (as indicated by __STDC_VERSION__):
 GCC options		Standard version
 -ansi			ISO/IEC 9899:1990
 -std=c89		ISO/IEC 9899:1990
--std=iso9899:199409	ISO/IEC 9899:1990 as amended by Amd.1:1995
+-std=iso9899:199409	ISO/IEC 9899:1990 as amended by Amd.1:1995 *
 -std=c99		ISO/IEC 9899:1999
 
+* glibc does not support this standard version.
+
 (Note that -std=c99 is not available in GCC 2.95.2, and that no
 version of GCC presently existing implements the full C99 standard.)
 
@@ -127,8 +129,8 @@ library in use, so glibc defines them in <features.h>.  Programs that
 test them before including any standard headers may misbehave.
 
 GCC doesn't support the optional imaginary types.  Nor does it
-understand the keyword _Complex.  This has the corresponding impact on
-the relevant headers.
+understand the keyword _Complex before GCC 3.0.  This has the
+corresponding impact on the relevant headers.
 
 glibc's use of extern inline conflicts with C99: in C99, extern inline
 means that an external definition is generated as well as possibly an
@@ -162,7 +164,28 @@ Issues with headers
 ===================
 
 There are various technical issues with the definitions contained in
-glibc's headers.  See
+glibc's headers, listed below.  The list below assumes current CVS GCC
+as of 2000-10-08, and relates to i686-linux; older GCC may lead to
+more problems in the headers.
+
+Note that the _t suffix is reserved by POSIX, but not by pure ISO C.
+Also, the Single Unix Specification generally requires more types to
+be included in headers (if _XOPEN_SOURCE is defined appropriately)
+than ISO C permits.
+
+<ctype.h> should not declare size_t.
+
+<inttypes.h> should not declare wchar_t.
+
+<signal.h> should not declare size_t.
+
+<stdint.h> should not declare wchar_t.
+
+<stdio.h> should not declare or use wchar_t, wint_t or off_t.
+
+<wchar.h> does not support AMD1; to support it, the functions
+fwprintf, fwscanf, wprintf, wscanf, swprintf, swscanf, vfwprintf,
+vwprintf, vswprintf and fwide would need to be declared when
+__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199409L and not just for C99.
 
-http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2000-07/msg00259.html
-http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2000-07/msg00279.html
+<wctype.h> should not declare size_t.