Obsoleting pow10

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 08/30/2017 04:22 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> What do people think of obsoleting the pow10 / pow10f / pow10l functions 
> (making them into compat symbols, no longer declared or documented, etc.), 
> given that there are standard exp10 names for those functions (and the 
> exp10 and pow10 functions were added at the same symbol version)?  This 
> slightly simplifies moving to the new wrapper templates in the 
> !LIBM_SVID_COMPAT case, by avoiding needing to arrange for pow10, pow10f 
> and pow10l to be defined by those templates (which deliberately avoid 
> defining pow10f128).
 
I have no objections. It sounds reasonable to deprecate them, but we've
never had any good reason to in the past. If you have a sufficient reason,
then that's acceptable.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.