outstanding patches

[Paolo Carlini]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

>Benjamin Kosnik
>libstdc++/13658
>
>Paolo, do you think you can sign up to get resolution on
>this one? Roger Sayle indicates __builtin_signbit{,f,l} can now be used,
>but the outlines of the patch seem fuzzy to me.
>
Ok, now I can tell you that we can fix that (13450, that is).

We can, since __builtin_signbit (unfortunately still incomplete for long
double and only in mainline) is not really needed

Basically, we can tweak submitter's patch to avoid == comparisons involving
0.0- and 0.0 (which would really require signbit, of course), without 
regressing
on 10689 (because, really interestingly, Gaby's code for 10689 will not 
be touched
at all!)

I should have something in 1/2 days.

Paolo.